Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON UNDERGROUND BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 6 June.

KILLINGHOLME GENERATING STATIONS (ANCILLARY POWERS) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 6 June.

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [13 May], That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Debate further adjourned till Thursday 6 June.

Mr. Speaker: As the next three Bills have blocking motions, I shall put them together.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL (By Order)

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 3) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 6 June.

HIGHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL (HARBOURS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed

Mr. Rajiv Gandhi

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about the death of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. It would be wrong to begin Foreign and Commonwealth questions without doing so. I know that the House will join me in condemning the assassination. It is a fearful tragedy. No one who knew Rajiv Gandhi could doubt that it was devotion to India that brought him into political life in the first place and led him to the top. The loss for India and for his friends is beyond calculation, and I am sure that the House will wish to join us in sending our deep sympathy to his family and to the people of India. We are confident that India, as a great democracy, will surmount even this disaster.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: With permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say first how absolutely right the Foreign Secretary was to start our proceedings this afternoon as he did. We echo entirely what he said, and he spoke for the whole House. We—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and I—have had our own acquaintance with Rajiv as well as with his mother. I last saw Rajiv at the Namibian independence celebrations in Windhoek last year, when the Foreign Secretary was there.
We have a particular and long-standing relationship with the Indian people, which stems from the independence of India, which was brought about under one of our Governments. Since that time, both sides of the House have admired the strength of Indian democracy and have admired that family for its contribution to Indian democracy. It is tragic that such an event should have taken place during an election, one in which Rajiv might again have become the Prime Minister of his country.
The Foreign Secretary is right to say that Indian democracy is strong enough to withstand even this event. It is a great democracy which we admire enormously and which will persevere and survive. In sending our sympathy to Rajiv's family and to the Indian people, let us not forget the Indian community in this country who will share the grief of their compatriots in India. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir Russell Johnston: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate all the Liberal Democrats with everything that the Foreign Secretary and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said. The sheer wickedness of putting a bomb in a basket of flowers to kill a democratic politician leaves one emotionally empty. The hugely important thing that Rajiv Gandhi sought to do was to bring to India reconciliation between different groups and different religions. That aim will continue after his death and we salute him for that high objective. We grieve with his wife, his family and his people. This is a terribly sad moment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will wish to be associated with what the Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Unity

Mrs. Currie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on further progress in the intergovernmental conference in the European Community on economic unity.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The United Kingdom continues to play a positive part in the European monetary union intergovernmental conference. The most recent discussions were in ECOFIN—the Economic and Finance Council—on 11 May 1991, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mrs. Currie: Bearing in mind the huge changes that the negotiations and discussions would mean for the United Kingdom and the fact that, according to opinion polls, two thirds of the British people think that we will be at stage 3 with a single currency by the year 2000 and more than half of them think that that is a good thing, does my right hon. Friend accept that the correct role of United Kingdom Ministers is to defend United Kingdom interests in all the negotiations, but as a part of, and at the heart of, a Europe that continues to be strong, democratic and free?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The negotiations at both conferences—the one in which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes part and the one in which I take part—have their occasional difficulties, as my hon. Friend knows, but they are being held in a good atmosphere and if everyone acts in the spirit that my hon. Friend suggested, the prospects will be good.

Sir Russell Johnston: Does the Foreign Secretary think that the good atmosphere to which he referred has been improved by the early-day motion on the Order Paper?

Mr. Hurd: I thought that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dealt very adeptly with that matter yesterday. I have nothing to add to the comments that he made.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great confidence among Conservative Members in his ability to stand up for British interests in the negotiations and that there is no general willingness to tie his hands by imposing conditions on which concessions he may wish to offer to secure still more vital British objectives?

Mr. Hurd: The stance that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I are taking in the two sets of discussions has been fully discussed in the House and in the country. I hope that, as my hon. Friend says, it commands general consent.

Mr. Kaufman: The right hon. Gentleman must not be quite so coy about the early-day motion and he must come clean on where he stands on it. Is the Government's policy the one that we know that the right hon. Gentleman

favours, signing up for EMU and the single currency; or is it the policy of Sir Leon Brittan, which would side-track us on a double-track approach; or is it the policy of the early-day motion, which everyone knows that Downing street has stirred up and is the Prime Minister's position? Which of the three policies—[Interruption.] It is the tendency of Conservative Members to heckle on all their splits so they now heckle a lot. Which of the three is the Government's policy, or are they dithering among the three?

Mr. Hurd: In following the right hon. Gentleman over many years, I have noticed that when he says that a certain thing is something that everybody knows, it is usually open to question, and that is exactly the position with his remarks today. The early-day motion to which he has again drawn attention refers to a text which the Luxembourg presidency put forward in an attempt to reach a compromise. There are various points in the text and some, although not all, are set out in the early-day motion and will need substantial change if they are to have our support.

Caribbean (Drugs Trade)

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what international measures are being taken to tackle the drugs trade in the Caribbean.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): The drugs trade poses a serious threat to the Caribbean. We are actively helping regional and international efforts aimed at interdicting drug smuggling, pursuing drug traffickers and confiscating their assets.

Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government pay great attention, applying considerable detail, to drug trafficking in the dependent territories and that they are taking a series of measures in co-operation with independent countries in the Caribbean which is to be welcomed?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. Much of the United Kingdom's drug-related assistance goes to the region, especially to the dependent territories. That assistance amounted to more than £4 million last year. We are in contact with the independent countries and encourage them to enact suitable legislation and sign agreements with us. Recently, I signed an agreement with Barbados on confiscation of drug-related assets.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I welcome the position on the Caribbean, the Minister will be aware that some people there forecast that the movement will spread to Europe. Is he satisfied that drug smuggling into Europe will be met with the same international co-operation to destroy trafficking and protect our people?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, it is particularly because of the movement of drugs from the Caribbean to Europe that we take such an interest. Naturally, we are also concerned for the interests of that region, but there is a community of interest between us because the drugs ultimately come here.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: When considering international measures, will m y hon. Friend bear in mind the potential of the banking operations on many of the Caribbean islands to launder money on behalf of the drugs trade?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we are conscious of the need for arrangements to counter money laundering. Part of our activities is to advise on how to counter money laundering in that region.

European Council

Mr. Buckley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is on the agenda of the European Council of 28 and 29 June; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: I expect discussion to cover the two intergovernmental conferences, progress in the single market programme and major international issues. The Luxembourg presidency has not yet announced the formal agenda.

Mr. Buckley: Will the Heads of Government discuss why the United Kingdom is the only country in the European Community ever to have the Commissioner block regional development grant due to the misappropriation—if that is the proper word—of the Treasury in terms of the European Parliament? Will the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary raise the matter of fines that the United Kingdom Government wish to impose on European Governments for not carrying out Community law for the Treasury in that matter?

Mr. Hurd: I am not sure that I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. If he wishes to write to me, the Treasury or the Department of Trade and Industry about his complaint, I shall look into it.
On the hon. Gentleman's second point, one of our proposals to the intergovernmental conference is that countries that persistently refuse to carry out their obligations within the Community should suffer in the form of fines.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday, on the early-day motion that has been mentioned today, has gone down extremely well with a very high proportion of Conservative Members? I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers on their efforts to ensure that the British line stands firm on those vital matters. I totally repudiate the remarks by the shadow Foreign Secretary suggesting that the motion was inspired at No. 10 Downing street. It came from the Conservative Back Benches.

Mr. Hurd: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is delighted. I gracefully accept his congratulations.

Mr. Radice: Were the right hon. Gentleman a Back Bencher, would he have signed that early-day motion?

Mr. Hurd: I would have had a long talk with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) first.

Mr. Budgen: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the role of political leadership to explain to the country and to the House the issues of principle and detail? Is not

there a grave danger that the House and the country will be left without leadership on the vital issue of economic and monetary union?

Mr. Hurd: I know of few political subjects that have been so thoroughly discussed and debated in the past months as that one was. Of course, my hon. Friend is right—there will need to be a constant process of debate and coming and going. As I understand it, the House will have an opportunity between now and the summit to go over those issues again.

Single Market

Mr. Cryer: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the most recent meeting with other Foreign Ministers from other EC member states on progress towards establishment of the single market.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): Single market questions were not discussed at the Foreign Affairs Council meeting on 13 and 14 May. Single market business is normally conducted at the Internal Market Council, where Department of Trade and Industry Ministers represent the United Kingdom. The Internal Market Council next meets on 18 June.

Mr. Cryer: Will the Minister insist that the United Kingdom has the right to ban the importation of dangerous dogs, illegal drugs and illegal arms at the frontiers of this country, irrespective of the single market? If those overpaid, arrogant, appointed Commissioners try to interfere, will he muzzle them or will he be the lapdog of the Common Market, as the Government have been for the past 12 years when they have capitulated to every demand made by the Common Market?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman was once an overpaid Member of the European Parliament and I dare say that, given the marginality of his seat, he may soon be looking for another European seat.
The United Kingdom does not share the Commission's views on the abolition of border controls. Frontier checks will continue to be necessary to prevent illegal immigration, terrorism, drug trafficking and serious crimes, as well as the other matters to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Mr. Favell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the intergovernmental conference which is under way is about something completely different from the single market? The draft treaty from the Luxembourg presidency is about who controls economic, foreign and immigration policies and much else. Does it strike my hon. Friend as extraordinary that the newly pin-striped socialist nellies have no policy on that whatsoever?

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend is right to say that intergovernmental conferences range over wide issues. They discuss the future of the European Community and European union and, as my hon. Friend said, the Government are at the centre of that debate. We intend to ensure that the next steps that the Community and the European union take will have the fingerprints of Britain all over them and that our influence is well brought to bear. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the


Labour party has spent a generation campaigning for withdrawal from the Community and now does not exactly know which way to move. One part of the party is manned by Europhobes, another part by Europhiles and it is led by Europhoneys.

Mr. Robertson: Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There seems to be a bit of a holiday atmosphere—will hon. Members please settle down.

Mr. Robertson: I was tempted to ask whether, if the Minister had still been the deputy Chief Whip, there would have been any early-day motion for us to discuss. Instead, I shall point out the dramatic contrast between the words of the Secretary of State for Employment which appeared in the Financial Times last Monday, which suggested that the British Government's stance on the social charter had softened, and the hard-line approach taken on the same day in the Foreign Affairs Council by the Foreign Secretary, who said that the British Government opposed the social charter. If majority voting on social affairs is proposed, will the British Government use their veto at the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am able to give a simple answer on both the hon. Gentleman's points. I shall deal first with the social action programme within the Community and the general action taken by the Community on social issues. The hon. Gentleman will know—I wish that he would also make it known to his hon. Friends—that the United Kingdom is the only member state so far to have implemented all 18 of the directives due for implementation. We have an excellent record on social issues, for which I make no apologies.
Secondly, the Government and their predecessors during the past 12 or 14 years have invested a considerable amount of effort, with the support of the British people, in shaping the way in which we think that industrial relations should be conducted in this country. The result of that policy during the past decade has meant that we now enjoy the best industrial relations that we have enjoyed for many years, which has enabled our nation's economy to prosper in a way that it has not done before. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government do not intend those achievements to be reversed by an extension of qualified majority voting within the Community.

Mr. Marlow: Whatever the merits of the issue, did we give the European institutions, within the single market, the right to decide about tobacco advertising? I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it is one thing for the House to surrender powers to the European Community but that those powers should not be acquired by stealth.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that Britain's support for the single market and Britain's decision to achieve it by qualified majority voting was a wise decision and that the implementation of the single market is the driving force behind the Community. As regards the proposed directive on tobacco advertising, it is only a proposal. It raises a substantial number of difficulties, not merely for Britain but for many other member states.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inadequate answer from the Minister, who is a servile Euro-fanatic, I ask leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me clear up this matter. It is certainly legitimate to ask to raise matters on the Adjournment, but not by making a speech and giving a foretaste of what the hon. Gentleman may say if he gets that Adjournment debate.

Sri Lanka

Mr. Battle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Sri Lanka.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We support the Sri Lankan Government in their efforts to overcome the terrorist challenge that they face, but at the same time we have made very clear our concerns that all parties must fully respect human rights.

Mr. Battle: In pressing the Sri Lankan Government to pursue a political solution to the conflict between the Sinhala and the Tamils, can the Minister assure me that our Government will support the Australian initiative for mediation by the Commonwealth?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have always made it clear that if there is any helpful part that we can play through mediation at the request of the Sri Lankan Government, we shall do so.

Mr. Michael Morris: Has my hon. Friend seen the same reports that I have received on the local elections in Sri Lanka, saying that they were free and fair and that Tamils stood and were elected? Is it significant now that, in response to the tragedy in India, the voice of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam was heard from that organisation's European headquarters in London? Is not it time that the Foreign Office and the Home Office got together to deal with those people who are essentially here on bogus visas?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I can confirm that it is our judgment that the elections were free and fair. Indeed, the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill), to whom I have spoken, were observers at those elections, and I am happy to say that they endorse that judgment, as does the high commissioner in Sri Lanka.
On the other matter that my hon. Friend mentioned, of course, should any evidence of illegal activity be noted or observed by anyone in London, that would be a matter for the police. At present, the LTTE's office in London is entitled to stay here. If anyone can provide any evidence that should be drawn to the attention of the police, we shall be happy to do that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Minister any information about whether Tamil Tigers were involved in the cruel assassination of Rajiv Gandhi? What communications have passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government about Mr. Gandhi's assassination?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No evidence of the kind suggested by the hon. Gentleman has come to our knowledge. Let us hope that evidence is soon available about the identity of


the perpetrators of that dreadful crime. Her Majesty's Government and, indeed, Her Majesty the Queen, have sent messages to Mr. Gandhi's family and to the Indian Government about that terrible incident.

Mr. Kilfedder: Does the Minister agree that the elections in Sri Lanka—which everyone concurred were free and fair—open up a period of political stability in that country? Does he agree that that, along with the exceptional talents of its people, will ensure that Sri Lanka plays a great and dominant role in the future?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much hope that my hon. Friend is right. We welcome the elections as having been free and fair. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that Sri Lanka has other problems to attend to before can move swiftly forward on a path of prosperity.

Yugoslavia

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions with the Government of Yugoslavia.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I visited Yugoslavia from 25 to 28 February and met representatives of the Federal and Republican Governments. The Yugoslav Prime Minister, Mr. Markovic, called on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 April. I saw the deputy Foreign Minister on the same day. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is in touch with the Foreign Minister.

Sir Russell Johnston: When the Minister contacts the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, will he tell him, first, that in the view of all democratic opinion in Europe no military solution to Yugoslavia's regional and national problems would be acceptable and, secondly, that the British Government would be willing to argue in the European Community in favour of the EC's taking on a role of mediation and perhaps even providing a peace-keeping force?

Mr. Hogg: On the role of the Yugoslav army, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be a disaster if it were used in the way that he described. It should be used only as a genuine peace-keeping force within Yugoslavia.
On the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that the European Community should play such a role. However, we should explore the possibility of finding within the conference on security and co-operation in Europe some method for offering good offices to the republics and provinces of Yugoslavia. To achieve that and make it effective would require the consent of all relevant parties.

Mr. Wareing: Have not the Government shown a complacent attitude to Yugoslavia? Do not the ethnic troubles in Yugoslavia threaten to overflow into other parts of Europe? As Europeans in one European home, we now have a responsibility. Should not the Government make a positive attempt to bring the European Community into discussions with the Federal Government of Yugoslavia and recognise that Federal Government as a proper member of the Council of Europe?

Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has done his homework. We have not been complacent. Indeed, our intervention in early January was given credit by the Croatian people for having prevented an invasion of Croatia by the Yugoslav army at that time. I do not believe that the European Community has a role to play. I have said that the CSCE might have a role to play if we could persuade all the parties to agree to use their good offices.

Arab-Israel Dispute

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress to date in resolving the Arab-Israel dispute.

Mr. Hurd: We welcome continuing American efforts to restart the middle east peace process, as I emphasised to Mr. Baker in Washington on Monday. With our EC partners, we have given them our full support. There has been some progress towards acceptance of the idea of a peace conference. Important differences remain, but there is enough encouragement to wear down those differences in order to get a conference under way.

Mr. Hogg: Has the Foreign Secretary read the remarks attributed to Mr. David Gore-Booth, an Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office? Do those remarks assist the Government's endeavours with the peace process, and are senior civil servants at the Foreign Office entitled to make such speeches under the cloak of a personal capacity? Will the right hon. Gentleman please clarify the position on that?

Mr. Hurd: After speaking on 20 March to a meeting of the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding, on lines which set out Government policy, Mr. Gore-Booth answered questions. A report on this appeared just the other day. Some of his answers gave personal views, not Government policy, as he made clear at the time. [Hon. Members: "Why?"] Mr. Gore-Booth is a talented and experienced public servant. I intend to take no further action.

Sir Dennis Walters: Despite the recent tendentious press attacks aimed at undermining Britain's role in the middle east, which have just been aired again, does not my right hon. Friend agree that Britain and Europe have an important part to play, either in supporting Secretary Baker's initiative or in replacing it if it is blocked because of Israeli intransigence, as, regrettably, now seems likely?

Mr. Hurd: I agree about supporting it. I do not believe that a European initiative could replace the active and energetic efforts of the United States. That is the view of the Twelve. We have deliberately stepped back from putting our own ideas and initiatives directly so as to give Mr. Baker's efforts a fair wind. I still think that that is the right policy.

Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be no permanent peace in the middle east until there is a Palestinian state? A clear statement on those lines by the British Government and other Governments would accelerate a long drawn out peace process that has no prospect of success while the Americans accept that there is an Israeli veto on the proposition.

Mr. Hurd: We believe in the right of the Palestinians to exercise self-determination. The outcome of that is not for us to decide. To get this process under way, a conference must be held, which must include both tracks of negotiation—between Israel and the Arab states, which are still in a state of war or a state of belligerency with her, and between Israel and representative Palestinians. That, in essence, is the Baker plan, and we believe that it is the only sensible way to proceed.

Mr. Latham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if progress is to be made there must be confidence-building measures on both sides? One important confidence-building measure, if the United Nations is represented at the conference, would be the rescinding of the "Zionism is racism" resolution.

Mr. Hurd: I think that that would be difficult to achieve, but my hon. Friend is right about confidence-building measures. An important confidence-building measure would be a stop to new settlements on the west bank. If that were forthcoming, it would be reasonable to ask Arab states to look at the operation of the boycott. It is possible to imagine, on both sides, confidence-building measures that would help the parties to get to grips with the essential central matters of substance.

Mr. Anderson: We pay tribute to the tireless efforts of Mr. Baker in seeking to find an acceptable peace formula for the middle east. Can the Foreign Secretary say whether, plausibly, there is any life left in those peace efforts, as Syria appears to have been written out of the script and the Israeli Prime Minister has said in terms that there will be no trading of land for peace?

Mr. Hurd: Following my talk with Mr. Baker on Monday, I believe that there is enough encouragement —though not a breakthrough—for him to persevere. That is also his view. The issues that have not yet been successfully tackled are the exact role of the United Nations in the process and whether the conference would be a once-for-all conference which would launch the discussions on the two tracks that I have described or whether it would be resumed from time to time.
Those are important points of difference. There is also the question of Palestinian representation, on which some progress has been made. But the points of difference are not so overwhelming as to justify writing off the whole process.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend really believe that Mr. Gore-Booth's not-so-youthful indiscretions really helped Britain in its role as an honest broker in the middle east? Does he agree that any Minister who was as indiscreet as that mandarin would have been asked for his or her resignation? Should not Mr. Gore-Booth be treated similarly?

Mr. Hurd: I have said what I have to say on that matter. When people go to meetings which they believe to be private and answer questions in an expressly personal capacity, the House must show some understanding of their position. I have confidence in Mr. Gore-Booth, with whom I have worked for a long time and, as I have said, I intend to take no further action in the matter. As my hon. Friend knows, we have close dialogue with the

Government of Israel—perhaps closer and more intimate than for some years. I welcome that and intend to maintain it, and I see no difficulty in doing so.

Iraq

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of political groups within Iraq.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I met representatives of political groups from Iraq on 7 and 12 March and on 22 April. I have no date set for another meeting. However, representatives are in regular contact with Foreign Office officials.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: May we have an assurance that every possible pressure will be kept on Saddam Hussein during the period of the discussions in Baghdad between the Kurdish leaders and the Iraqi Government? If the Iraqi Government in any way delay finalising those talks, can it be made very clear to them that they invite external intervention in the internal affairs of Iraq?

Mr. Hogg: We certainly think it desirable that the Iraqis should enter into an agreement with the Kurdish representatives with a view to establishing an autonomous region within Iraq. There are various points at which, under the Security Council resolutions, we can exercise pressure on the Iraqi Government. To the extent that that is proper, we shall do so.

Mr. Cormack: Is it not incomprehensible to many people that a beast like Saddam Hussein, against whom the world took up arms, should be able to bring to trial and sentence a British subject?

Mr. Hogg: I agree with my hon. Friend that that was a deplorable event. It was also in clear breach of a number of Security Council resolutions which required the release of third country nationals then held in Iraq. There are various types of pressure that we can put on Iraq. We have already made it plain that we shall be remarkably unsympathetic to any attempt to relax sanctions. Furthermore, we have made it plain that the attempt by the Iraqi Government to persuade us to unfreeze assets held within United Kingdom jurisdiction is likely to fail.

Cyprus

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to support those Cypriot politicians who are working for a peaceful solution to the problem of partition in Cyprus.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I recognise the hon. Member's close interest in this subject and, indeed, his wide knowledge of Greek culture. I am sure, therefore, that he will be pleased to know that Her Majesty's Government are giving full support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts to secure a comprehensive, just and lasting settlement of the Cyprus dispute.

Mr. O'Hara: I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he agree that the beautiful island of Cyprus has seen far too much human misery and experienced far too much drag on its economy as a result of 17 years of partition? Does he


agree that, for historical reasons, Her Majesty's Government have a particular obligation to use their good offices to solve the problem? Does he agree that there has never been a better time for progress, with Turgut Ouzel increasingly recognising that the Cyprus problem is a major block to his ambitions for good relations with the west? The Gulf war has drawn attention to other United Nations resolutions, which have not been so enthusiastically pursued. There is increasing recognition by politicians on both sides of the divide in Cyprus that there must be a peaceful solution. Will the Minister therefore send the Government's congratulations to President Georghios Vassiliou who, in this weekend' elections [Interruption]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a rather long question.

Mr. O'Hara: I am asking the Government to send congratulations to President Vassiliou because in the elections at the weekend two thirds of the Greek electorate of Cyprus voted for his policies for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic of Cyprus.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman's question. He will be aware that the "noises off" were raised not so much in disagreement, but because his question was a tiny bit prolix. The Government strongly support the efforts made by the United Nations and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the stature and importance of the United Nations in world affairs has increased substantially in the past few months. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed the matter with the United Nations Secretary-General on 20 May. We shall continue to support the Secretary-General in his efforts.

Sir Anthony Durant: Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that the United Nations should now make a stronger effort as there is a better atmosphere with the Turks in that part of the world? Surely the United Nations can now take firmer action.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that the United Nations Secretary-General's representative is pursuing separate discussions with the parties to the dispute with a view to the resumption of inter-communal dialogue. He proposes to report to the Security Council in July and we very much hope that his report will be encouraging.

Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that hon. Members who take an ongoing interest in Cyprus argue for a united Cyprus in which the rights of both communities, Greek and Turkish, are honoured? Is he also aware that one of the great stumbling blocks is the attitude that Mr. Denktash repeatedly takes when Turkish Cypriots wish to meet Greek Cypriots to discuss how they want to see their island developed? Mr. Denktash always refuses to allow Turkish Cypriots to leave the north to meet Greek Cypriots. Will the Minister make those views known to Mr. Denktash and tell him that he is in no way building goodwill or confidence by that attitude?

Mr. Garel-Jones: As the hon. Gentleman will know as he takes a close interest in these matters, Greek Cypriots attach fundamental importance to territory, rights of return, settlement and property, while on the other hand, for the Turkish Cypriots, security and political equality are the key concerns. What we wish to see, what the hon.
Gentleman wishes to see and what the United Nations is working towards is one state and two communities. We must keep our eyes firmly fixed on that.

Latin America

Mr. Dickens: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in the dialogue between the European Community and Latin America.

Mr. Garel-Jones: This dialogue has been strengthened by the ministerial level discussions that the European Community held with the countries of central America in Managua on 18 and 19 March and with the Rio group in Luxembourg on 26 and 27 April.

Mr. Dickens: So that we get the British sales teams cracking in Latin America, will my hon. Friend outline to the House some of the commercial opportunities available to British sales forces?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The prospects for British exporters in the Latin American continent are very great—the more so now that countries there are fully open to democracy and are pursuing proper market policies. Latin America is a very promising market with 422 million people and a gross domestic product in 1989 of $840 billion. It offers substantial opportunities for British exporters who, in 1990, increased their penetration there by 16 per cent.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the Minister agree that the self-sufficiency, indeed the very nature of much of the farming in South America, is being destroyed by the lure of easy loot from the common agricultural policy to provide feedstocks for the beef and butter mountains in Europe and that it is causing a dramatic and detrimental change to much local agriculture in South America?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the most crucial issues facing Latin America at the moment is a successful outcome to the Uruguay round—an outcome which opens up European markets to the agricultural products of Latin America. That is an outcome for which Britain is pressing very strongly indeed.

Hong Kong

Sir Michael Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in talks on the future development of the port and airport in Hong Kong; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hurd: Talks with the Chinese Government on the Hong Kong airport project resumed on 18 May. We and the Chinese Government agree that Hong Kong needs a new airport, and we are making intensive efforts to secure Chinese support for the project.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that recent conversations with the Chinese Government and with the Hong Kong Government suggest that there is widespread support in principle for the early implementation of the project? Does he accept also that there is genuine cause for unease on the part of the Chinese Government over the long-term financial implications of the project? Will he keep an open mind on structures that would allow both governmental and


commercial linkage to look at some way in which the financial aspects of the project can be monitored without interfering with the administration of the project?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right. That is one of the points that we have been discussing with the Chinese for some time now and we are still discussing it today. We are seeking means of reassuring them on that point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his suggestion.

Sir Peter Blaker: While the Government of Hong Kong must remain with and be seen to remain with the United Kingdom until 1997, is it not desirable in present circumstances that there should be many more exchanges of visits and much more dialogue between officials in Hong Kong and officials in China, in the interests of improving mutual understanding?

Mr. Hurd: I am certainly in favour of that. I believe that there should be—and, under the joint declaration, would be—gradually increasing co-operation and exchanges of visits on such matters. My right hon. Friend will also agree that everyone needs to be clear that the Hong Kong Government retain the ability to administer Hong Kong effectively between now and 1997.

United Nations

Mr. Sillars: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with other Governments and the United Nations to review the mechanisms and structures of the United Nations.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We play a leading part in efforts by members states to bring about effective structures and efficient methods at the United Nations.

Mr. Sillars: Am I correct in saying that under the provisions of article 96 of the United Nations charter, taking account of the major organs of the United Nations and the specialist agencies, only the secretariat headed by the Secretary-General does not have power to seek an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice? Would not it help the peaceful solution of disputes if he were given such a power?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of that supplementary question, which would have been difficult to answer in other circumstances. With all due deference and gratitude for that, however, I cannot be too enthusiastic in my reply. The position is broadly as the hon. Gentleman has described it. However, the United Nations bodies that need legal advice are those bodies which make the decisions—the General Assembly, the Security Council, and other bodies composed of member states. Those are the bodies that need advice from the International Court of Justice. Although we very much welcome all the hard work of the Secretary-General and the success that he has had, it would not be appropriate to press in the direction that the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my hon. Friend note that the Prime Minister's excellent recent initiative in obtaining a common European policy on matters due to be discussed at the United Nations is a significant development and an important one within the European Community? Would not it also have the advantage of avoiding further discussion about whether Germany should become a

member of the Security Council because it is most effectively influenced through Britain and France and the European Community common position?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, where there is a common European Community position, permanent members of the Security Council that are also members of the European Community, such as Britain, are more than happy to take account of it. We also make every effort to keep the rest of the Community involved in its activities.

Occupied Territories

Mr. Cartwright: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Foreign Secretary of Israel to discuss the future of the occupied territories.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My right hon. Friend has no plans for a further meeting with Mr. Levy at the moment, but he remains in regular contact with him, particularly on the peace process and the situation in the occupied territories. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), met Mr. Levy at the EC-Israel Co-operation Council in Brussels on 14 May.

Mr. Cartwright: Will the Minister confirm that the continued Israeli occupation of Arab lands in the west bank and Gaza is just as unacceptable and wrong in principle as the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? Will he take every opportunity to make that simple fact clear and plain to the Israeli Government, whenever he meets them?

Mr. Hogg: What I shall do, whenever I have the opportunity, is to impress on everybody—the Palestinians, the Arab states, and the Israelis—the importance of starting a peace negotiation. It is that which they must do.

Mr. Sumberg: Does my hon. and learned Friend recall that, when Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, one of the first people to back Iraq was Yasser Arafat of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? Bearing that fact in mind, is it not unrealistic and unacceptable to pressurise the Israeli Government now into sitting down and negotiating with the PLO and others who seek Israel's destruction?

Mr. Hogg: The PLO certainly discredited itself by its conduct during the Gulf war. We are not pressurising the Israelis to sit down at the same table with the PLO, but we do say that it is extremely important that the Palestinians who are at the table are able to speak with authority and carry conviction among the people whom they purport to represent.

Mr. Janner: Before there are any further meetings with the Foreign Secretary of Israel, whether concerning the occupied territories or any other matter, would it not be a good idea for at least one Minister to dissociate the Government from the statements made by Mr. Gore-Booth, especially as they were made at a so-called private meeting reportedly attended by more than 100 people? Perhaps it would be better to move Mr. Gore-Booth so that he could represent Her Majesty's Government in Syria, Iraq or some other enlightened regime elsewhere in the world.

Mr. Hogg: I have to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that when he gets to his feet I smell the strong smell of humbug.

Lebanon

Mr. Adlley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the Lebanon.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We congratulate President Hrawi and his Government on Lebanon's continuing progress towards peace and reconciliation. Their efforts enjoy our full support. I hope to visit Beirut soon.

Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a widespread welcome for his forthcoming visit, notwithstanding the fact that Israeli tanks are yet again massing on the Lebanese border? Will he confirm that it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the Ta'if agreement and also the implementation of United Nations resolution 245, which calls on the Israelis to withdraw from the part of Lebanon that they are currently occupying?

Mr. Hogg: I am very much looking forward to going to Beirut. We welcome the fact that the Lebanese Government are reasserting control over that country. We think that the Ta'if agreement is an important element in that process. We look to an early withdrawal from the Lebanon of all foreign forces.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As the problem of the British hostages in Lebanon is indirectly linked with the Muslim hostages who went missing in the Christian enclave north of Beirut, and in view of the improved circumstances in the Lebanon, have the Government made any progress in identifying the location of the missing Muslim hostages?

Mr. Hogg: I will do all that I can when I am in the Lebanon to carry forward our policy of securing the release of hostages. There is no more important issue on our agenda on the Lebanon and Iran.

Burma

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the current Government in the republic of Burma.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend wrote to General Saw Maung, chairman of the ruling military council in Burma, on 6 July last year welcoming the democratic election in May and urging respect for human rights and for the wishes of the people expressed in that election. We have since reinforced that message several times.

Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Burma may have moved away from the world headlines, Aung San Suu Kyi remains under house arrest and is banned from leading her party and taking part—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Come on. Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. Mitchell: Some 25 Opposition Members of Parliament in Burma have been sentenced to long periods in prison, 3,000 people are political prisoners imprisoned without trial and 15,000 people have fled the country to escape arrest and intimidation. Will my hon. Friend ensure that that outrage is kept before the world's attention and that Her Majesty's Government make strong representations themselves and through the European Economic Community about this outrageous state of affairs?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am happy to support the condemnation that my hon. Friend expressed. We condemn the failure of the Burmese military authorities to give power to the people who have been democratically elected. We condemn their outrages in terms of human rights and their imprisonment of political opponents—including, of course, the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi.

Business of the House

Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for the first week after the recess?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): Yes, Sir. The business for the week following the spring adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 3 JUNE—Second Reading of the Local Government Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 4 JUNE—Second Reading of the Child Support Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 5 JUNE—Opposition day (12th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject for debate to be announced.
THURSDAY 6 JuNE—Remaining stages of the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions (No. 2) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 JUNE—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House. Subject for debate to be announced.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet to consider European Community documents as follows:

Tuesday 4 June at 4.30 pm:

Committee A will consider document No. 5518/91 relating to the import of animals.

Wednesday 5 June at 10.30 am:

Committee A will consider documents Nos. 10749/90 and 10837/90 relating to the specific character and origin marking of foodstuffs.

Committee B will consider document No. 8460/90 relating to data protection.

[Tuesday 4 June

European Standing Committee A


Relevant European Committee Document


5518/91
Third Country Imports of Live Animals

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

HC 29–xviii (19990–1991)

Wednesday 5 June

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Documents


(a) 10749/90
Foodstuffs: Certificates of Specific Character


(b) 10837/90
Foodstuffs: Geographical Indications and Designations of Origin

i

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 29–xii(1990–91) and HC 29–xx (1990–91)
(b) HC 29–xi(1990–91) and HC 29–xix (1990–91)

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document


8460/90
Processing of Personal Data and Information Security

Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 29–iv (1990–91).]

Dr. Cunningham: Given the urgent need to act on the issue of vicious dogs, why is not legislation to take the

necessary action being introduced at the earliest opportunity, in the first week after the recess? As the Government have deliberately and consistently blocked proposals to introduce a dog registration scheme—against which the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Leader of the House have voted, against the advice even of their hon. Friends—may we have some assurance that when the legislation is published it will include provisions for a dog registration scheme?
We are to have yet another Local Government Finance Bill from this Government. People have lost count of the number of Local Government Finance Bills that we have had and of the changes that have been made. Does the Leader of the House recall the assurances that were given to hon. Members in all parts of the House during the debates on the Local Government Act 1984—that councils with small budgets would never be the subject of capping proposals under this Government? Does he recall that just a year ago the present Secretary of State for the Environment said, when he wrote to The Times on 10 May 1990—

Mr. Speaker: Order. These are business questions. The hon. Gentleman should ask about the business for the week following the spring recess.

Dr. Cunningham: I am speaking about the very business that is to occupy the House after the recess. Does the Leader of the House recall that the present Secretary of State for the Environment said that universal capping would be an act of centralisation which the nation could well do without? What has changed since May of last year when the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) said that? Can we be told when this Bill, the most centralising and the most ignominious control of local government ever introduced, is to be published? When will the Bill be in the Vote Office? As the Leader of the House —[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that we are going into recess tomorrow, but could we just settle down and deal with today's business in a serious manner?

Dr. Cunningham: Has the Leader of the House seen the decision of the Royal College of Nursing, unanimously taken, to press the Government yet again to stop—

Mr. Richard Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard nothing out of order, but what is it?

Mr. Holt: It is only a short while ago that, when it came to business questions, the Leader of the Opposition undertook that role. Arbitrarily, the Labour party changed that. One of the reasons that it changed it was the verbosity of the Leader of the Opposition. He is now—

Mr. Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Well, I am afraid some points of order are bogus.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that I am not responsible for whom the Opposition Front Bench designate for business questions. It is not a point of order.

Dr. Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Holt: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please resume his seat?

Mr. Holt: The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that you will not allow this side of the House to speak. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is behaving in his usual boorish fashion.

Dr. Cunningham: We are well used to the whingeing from the Conservative side of the House.
Has the Leader of the House seen the decision, unanimously taken, by the Royal College of Nursing to press the Government yet again to stop proposals for the creation of new national health service trusts? As the Government have a day in the first week after the recess, the Friday, to which they have not yet allocated a subject, why can we not have a debate in Government time about the crisis in the national health service so that, if the Government have such a good story to tell, the nation can hear it?

Mr. MacGregor: First of all, the hon. Gentleman asked me about dogs. As he knows, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be making a statement about legislation immediately after this business statement. We shall introduce legislation as soon as possible, and that means very soon. I note that the Labour party has given its broad support to the objectives of this measure. As my right hon. Friend will make clear, we are endeavouring to make the Bill concentrate on the key issue of the breeds of dog that are causing the present difficulties. I voted against dog registration for a variety of reasons, one of which was that it did not seem to focus on this key issue, which is what the Bill is about. The country expects us to act on this issue as soon as possible, and will want speedy action on the relevant measures. The country will not forgive the Labour party if it tries to obstruct the measure. I hope that it will not, but will co-operate fully to achieve the objectives of the Bill as quickly as possible.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about the Local Government Finance Bill. One of the issues on which that Bill focuses is an increase in capping on authorities with a turnover of less than £15 million. The hon. Gentleman will know that since last year there has been a major change, which is that we propose to introduce the council tax. That tax has many merits and, unlike the Labour proposals, it deals with the criticisms of both the domestic rating system and the community charge. As we said in the consultative documents on the council tax, it is necessary to ensure that we have some protection against authorities that substantially increase expenditure. For the hon. Gentleman to claim that this is a great centralising measure is, like so many of his remarks on these issues, right over the top. We already have considerable capping powers. As I have explained to him, we now propose a council tax rather than the community charge.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Bill is likely to be published. It will be published by the time the House rises tomorrow. Therefore, we shall be giving the normal two weekends for the Bill to be considered before the debate on Monday 3 June.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked about national health service trusts. I am glad that he used the phrase "national health service trusts" which, of course, makes it absolutely clear that the trusts are part of the national health service. We have made it clear that we will continue this policy because it is very much in the interests of the

funding of the national health service that all its expenditure is as efficient as possible. The NHS trusts are a way of achieving that.
As for Friday's debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that on recent business statements I have been urged to find time for debates on a wide range of issues. We now have an embarrassment of choices. We have already had many debates on the national health service, and the House has urged me to consider other subjects on which we have not had a recent debate. We are endeavouring to decide which of those many subjects should be chosen for 7 June.

Mr. John Bowis: Will my right hon. Friend find time to make a statement to the House not only to confirm that questions to the Secretary of State for Health on hospital trusts within the national health service are in order, but to follow up inquiries which I trust he has made into yesterday's activities in the House when the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) sought to mislead the House and, even more disgracefully, sought to involve in a party political charade a Clerk of the Table Office?

Mr. MacGregor: I should make the position clear, as it was made clear yesterday by you, Mr. Speaker, when you said:
The answer to that question … is yes.
That is absolutely unequivocal, and you went on to say:
I have already said that the Table Office is accepting questions."—[Official Report, 21 May 1991; Vol. 191, c.782.]
This is the second time that the Labour party has raised a wholly inaccurate and wrong scare about NHS trusts. I am sure that the House will regret the fact that, on both occasions, the Labour party has not seen fit to withdraw.

Mr. James Wallace: The Leader of the House has mentioned legislation on dogs but, although he might reasonably expect co-operation to get it through speedily, does he accept that there should be careful consideration of the terms of such legislation? Will he guarantee that adequate time will be given in both Houses for consideration of the Bill?
In the first week after the recess, what measures will create one more job or do something to decrease the growing number of the unemployed in this country? Can we have a debate on the growing scandal of unemployment?

Mr. MacGregor: On the second point, I have already said on many occasions that I am perfectly happy for the question of unemployment to be raised in the House as often as possible, because our record on unemployment measures is streets ahead of that of the Opposition. We have had many opportunities to debate that issue.
On the first point, we are anxious to publish the Bill as soon as possible, so that the House will have the opportunity to consider it. Clearly, we want proper parliamentary consideration of it in both Houses. Given the urgency of the situation and the desirability of ensuring that the dreadful incidents that have occurred recently do not recur or, at least, that we take every possible action to prevent them from recurring, I am sure that the House will agree that it is important to act quickly

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the Government's response to the previous two Procedure Committee reports showed considerable


agreement with many of its recommendations? They need to be debated in the House, as does the resolution for them to come into operation. I wonder whether we might have a debate on that next week, or, if not, very soon afterwards.

Mr. MacGregor: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to his work as Chairman of that Committee and to all the members of the Committee. The effectiveness of the Committee's work is shown by the fact that, as he says, the Government have accepted many of its recommendations. The first stage is clearly for me to put the orders on the Order Paper, which I hope to do fairly shortly after we return. I should then wish to give the House a short time to consider them, and I hope to be able to deal with that before the House rises.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Leader of the House see the excellent publicity and does he know of the great public interest in the launch of the Labour party's proposal to set up a Greater London authority to act as a strategic authority for London? I have a copy here if he would like to see it. In view of the fact that he has not announced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give back the silver."] I will give it back when we have the Greater London authority. As the Leader of the House has not announced a subject for the Adjournment debate on 7 June, may we have a debate on strategic planning in London and on the fact that, under this Government, the standard of living and of life in London has deteriorated rapidly?

Mr. MacGregor: I have certainly seen the publicity and I have also read some of the leaders about the Labour party's proposals, which were pretty devastating critiques. It is clear that the bureaucratic, profligate and extremist Greater London council, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, was deservedly unloved and that its passing was understandably unlamented. The proposal to reincarnate son of GLC will go down extremely badly with the electorate because it was not a period or an institution that was popular or effective.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to the question asked by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate on London so that the widest possible publicity can be given to the Labour party's document? The Labour party speaks about creating a vision of quality, but the people of London will see that the creation of a Greater London authority means a vision of filthy streets, uncollected rents, rotten services and overweaning bureaucracy. Is not the Labour party trying merely to saddle all Londoners with more red ink, more red tape and more red Ken?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and that point has been made by commentators this morning. There is no doubt that no one was sad to see the Greater London council go except for people such as the hon. Members for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks). No one else was. Its passing was unlamented and it will remain so.

Mr. Greville Janner: In view of the typically charming, friendly and generous refusal of the

Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), to reply to the question on Mr. Gore-Booth, may we have a debate on whether civil servants who speak in so-called private meetings attended by more than 100 people are entitled to put forward their views in a private capacity and continue in their jobs when in the process they are palpably speaking against Government policy as expressed by everyone other than the Minister of State?

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary dealt with the matter during Question Time and I have nothing to add to what he said.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: May we have a debate as soon as possible on priorities in public spending? Bearing in mind that Nye Bevan once said that socialism is the language of priorities, will my right hon. Friend arrange for a copy of the book "What Nye said" to be placed in the Library of the House? Unfortunately, although the Leader of the Opposition claims authorship of the book in several of his "Who's Who" entries, the Library can find absolutely no trace of it. Would it not benefit all hon. Members to have the views of the Leader of the Opposition on priorities as an absolute, overriding and top priority?

Mr. MacGregor: I have certainly noted my hon. Friend's remarks. I would recommend another book which, if I recall correctly, was called "Inside the Treasury", written by Lord Barnett—Joel Barnett—Chief Secretary to the Treasury during a horrendous period under the previous Labour Government when public expenditure went completely out of control. It is an interesting book because it is riddled with quotations on how the Labour party succumbed to every spending pressure and simply did not control public expenditure. In the coming months, we need many more opportunities to debate that, because it is exactly what would happen again.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the pressure on business today, will hon. Members concentrate on the business statement and not deal with matters which might more correctly be dealt with on a different platform?

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: The Leader of the House will be aware of the important statement that was made earlier this week about post-school education in Scotland, as it is a matter in which he takes a great interest. Given the continuing contravention by the House of its Standing Orders, in that there is not a Scottish Select Committee to discuss such vital matters, does the right hon. Gentleman expect that such a Committee will be established after the recess? At the very least, will the Scottish Grand Committee, which has not met for virtually a year, be convened, or have the usual channels clogged up?

Mr. MacGregor: I have nothing to add to what I have said on several occasions in the House about a Scottish Select Committee and I do not expect to add anything more after the recess. I am happy to discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the means by which we can debate his excellent proposals.

Mr. Conal Gregory: In view of the increase in crime, especially auto crime, in north Yorkshire, will my


right hon. Friend arrange a debate at the earliest opportunity on whether we need to extend the powers available to the judiciary and why magistrates in York have never in the last year used the maximum penalties available to them? Does he agree that such a debate would clearly illustrate that crime does not pay?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, my hon. Friend's message is important and we wish to find every opportunity to put that message over. I cannot promise any Government time to debate that matter in the near future, but he will know that other means are available to him to raise the matter in the House.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will the Leader of the Flouse provide time for an early debate on this week's Home Affairs Select Committee report on horse racing? Will he explain to the Home Secretary that all my hon. Friends, with the exception of one, who are active members of the all-party group on bloodstock industries and horse racing—incidentally, none of them were called as witnesses by the Committee—wish to express dissent on two or three of the recommendations? They particularly wish to dissent from the criticism of the Jockey Club and the recommendation that it should be replaced.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government will respond to all Select Committee reports in the normal way and within the normal time scale. It may be appropriate to find time for a debate after that.

Mr. David Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept the congratulations of many hon. Members on his excellent speech pointing out that many building societies are not reducing their interest rates as fast as the Government are reducing the bank base rate? If that continues and banks do not reduce their mortgage lending rates as fast as the Chancellor is reducing the minimum lending rate, it may be necessary to have a debate in the House on competition in the financial services sector.

Mr. MacGregor: I hope that more building societies will follow the lead of some that have already offered greater choice and flexibility to borrowers who had previously had annual repayment schemes. That was the real point that I was making last night. It is a matter for the building societies and their borrowers, because I believe in choice and variety.

Mr. Dennis Turner: Is the Leader of the House as concerned as some Opposition Members at the development of the European Commission's drafting of food legislation on certain important British products that we have enjoyed in this country for many years, such as mince and beautiful sausages? Our flavoured crisps are now being attacked. Those are important items in the lives of many people. We should have a debate in the House on behalf of the people of this country who want to continue to enjoy products against which the Commission is discriminating.

Mr. MacGregor: I have long experience of those matters. Sometimes, inappropriate proposals are made at an early stage and they should not be pursued by the Commission. The proposal to prohibit flavoured crisps falls into that category. It is not necessary to debate the matter in the House, because any moves to prohibit the production of that food item, which has been marketed

safely for years in the United Kingdom, will be opposed by the Government, and we are already making our position clear.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: Following the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), does the Leader of the House agree that it is high time that we had a debate on procedure and abuse thereof? That would ensure that we did not have the disgraceful scenes that occurred on the Floor of the House yesterday when, under the guise of bogus points of order, the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) wantonly misled the House by saying that the Table Office—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that no Member wantonly or deliberately misleads the House. Will he withdraw that comment, please?

Mr. MacKay: I withdraw the word "wantonly", Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacGregor: I thought that there was more to come.
It was uncharacteristic of the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) to pursue a matter that turned out to be inaccurate. He does not normally do so and is falling into the trap of some of his hon. Friends who are pursuing wrong issues and giving an inaccurate impression of NHS trusts.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Since, in South Africa today, so many political prisoners are on hunger strike and the peace process there is at a dangerous stage, will the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the Government will use the recess to put pressure on President de Klerk to honour his obligations and guarantee that the Foreign Secretary will make a statement immediately after the recess?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot give any guarantees about statements, but I have noted what the hon. Gentleman has said and I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on dog registration that could go wider than the debate on the Bill? Would not that give the House an opportunity to remind the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that the essence of a dog registration scheme is ownership, and that in none of the attacks with which the Bill will deal has the issue of ownership been in any doubt, so the idea that a dog registration scheme is relevant to this issue is wrong?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree very much with my hon. Friend and think that, if the Bill is to progress speedily through both Houses—as we wish it to do and as, I think, the country wants us to ensure—it will be important to concentrate precisely on the matters in question and find solutions that are entirely pertinent to the problem.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why does the Leader of the House not have a debate about unemployment? For the past 13 months the figures have soared and there are now probably many more than 3 million people unemployed if we include women who do not appear on the register and the half a million young people who are on slave labour schemes. Is it not a fact that the jobs of


ambulance men and women up and down the country are now placed in jeopardy because the NHS and the trusts are refusing to cart people back and forward from hospital? Therefore, the 3 million unemployed will be added to by numerous ambulance workers up and down the country. Let us have a debate on unemployment.

Mr. MacGregor: I have said already that we are happy to debate the issue all the time, because our employment policies are very much more designed to deal with ensuring permanent, secure, long-term jobs, which are viable and deliver goods and services effectively. That is part of the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point about NHS trusts.
It is open to the Opposition to use their Supply day for a debate on the subject. I hope that they will, because it will enable us to contrast our policies and proposals with theirs, and demonstrate yet again the point on which they seem to be so sensitive—a national minimum wage will destroy many jobs. I shall be happy for us to have a Supply day debate on the subject. The hon. Gentleman might suggest it to the relevant Opposition spokesmen.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does the Leader of the House consider, as I do, that the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) owes the excellent staff of the House an apology? At exactly the same time as the hon. Member was saying yesterday that staff were refusing to accept questions—an allegation which I have just heard him repeat today—exasperated staff in the Table Office were protesting that they had been given no such instructions; I heard them say so. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government of this country are more than happy to answer questions in debates on subjects that involve the spending of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money on NHS patients in NHS hospitals, whatever they are called, so that the Government can take the credit when the benefit of the reforms comes to the fore?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the Government are happy to answer all questions on the NHS because their record is an extremely creditable one. I believe that our policies ensure not only substantial funding, but the effective delivery of services within that funding. It is noticeable that the Labour party has no such policies, which is why it resorts to inaccurate side issues —it is obvious that that is all it can do.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Last week, the Leader of the House said that he could not find time this week for a statement on the World in Action programme about the Larry Goodman empire. In the light of evidence that Government servants have been in receipt of gifts from Mr. Goodman and agriculture in Northern Ireland is suffering as a result of the way in which his empire has spread, will the Leader of the House re-examine the subject and attempt to find time for such a statement when we return after the recess—or are we waiting for the inquiry in the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. MacGregor: Obviously, I cannot find time for that in the week after the recess, but I shall discuss that matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. James Paice: When my right hon. Friend considers finding time for a debate on procedures in the House, will he also consider the question of information to hon. Members about what is taking place in the House because I was rather concerned to see early-day motion 861 on coal mining subsidence?
[That this House congratulates the honourable Member for Sherwood on persuading Her Majesty's Government to include the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill in this year's parliamentary programme; congratulates Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State for Energy on making the parliamentary time available; notes that this Bill completed its Second Reading on 4th February of this session and all its remaining stages in the House of Commons on 22nd April; and is surprised that this information does not appear yet to have reached the honourable Members for Llanelli, Brent East, Clydesdale, Birmingham, Perry Barr, and Preston, all of whom signed Early Day Motion Number 78, condemning Her Majesty's Government for failing to introduce the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill after it had completed all its stages in the House of Commons.] 
That reminds us that five Labour Members, including a Front-Bench spokesman, continued to press the Government to take action on coal mining subsidence even after the Coal Mining Subsidence Bill passed all its stages in the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was interested to see that six Opposition Members were urging the Government to do something that we had already done and that had taken up a great deal of parliamentary time, which suggests that some Opposition Members are not exactly following what is going on.
The Government have acted on that matter and I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Stewart), as does the early-day motion, because that subject has been a great interest of his and he has had a great deal to do with the fact that we have acted so swiftly on the matter.

Mr. David Winnick: Is there to be a statement on the further responsibilities which are apparently to be given to the Government Chief Whip? We are told in the newspapers that he is to be the Government's troubleshooter—Mr. Fixit. If that is the case, is not it necessary to have a statement because surely, with the way in which the Government are facing a crisis virtually every day, the Chief Whip's job will be virtually redundant, as he will be so busy occupying himself with his second job?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that Conservative Members feel that it is totally unnecessary to have a debate because we know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder) is doing an admirable job and I am sure that he will continue to do so. I am also sure that he is glad that anything to do with handling the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is not one of his responsibilities.

Mr. Roger King: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the fact that the wonderful news that inflation has reduced by a huge amount to 6·4 per cent. seems not to have reached the Opposition? Therefore, will he consider giving time at the next available opportunity for a debate on the success of


the Government's economic policies and for a comparison of our policies with those of the Opposition, which revolve around spend-tax, spend-tax, spend-tax?

Mr. MacGregor: As my hon. Friend knows, I agree with him, and I am sure that when the House gets back after the recess we shall concentrate upon such matters.

Mr. Ray Powell: I wonder whether the Leader of the House would consider early-day motion 868, tabled by myself and 134 right hon. and hon. Members yesterday,
[That this House expresses deep concern and sympathy at the death of .Jeff Jones, a Rhondda miner, at the Wem Tern licensed coal mine at Pencoed, Mid Glamorgan, and asks the Secretary of State for Energy to hold an immediate inquiry into the safety standards at this and other licensed coal mines and to publish quarterly statistics on safety inspections in those mines.]
May I ask for an early debate on the issue, and especially on the subject of safety in mines? I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, together with right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, would like to join me in recording our sympathy to the widow June and daughters Gemma and Jade at their home in Stanley road in Gelli, Rhondda, which is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I am sure that it will be a comfort to them to know that we share their grief in this tragedy.
It is always a sad day when there is a death in a mine and it is a constant reminder of the days when deaths occurred in the mines every week and sometimes every day, especially in Wales. I pay tribute to all those who burrowed with hands, picks and shovels to reach Mr. Jones but who found, after 22 hours, that they had worked in vain. This is yet another reminder that safety in our mines must always be a top priority for any Government.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. MacGregor: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I come from a coal-mining village and therefore I very much share the sentiments that he has expressed. I am sure that the whole House will wish to express its sympathy to the relatives of Mr. Jones and to pay a tribute to the work that was done yesterday, alas to no avail.
The Health and Safety Executive's mines inspectorate has responded, as it always does in the case of a fatal accident, by initiating a full and thorough investigation. We must now await the outcome of that investigation, but I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter so that it enables the whole House to express its sympathy in this tragic incident.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the question of having another debate on the national health service, specifically on the distribution of spending within the NHS? Is he aware that, within the North West Thames region, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire comprise 45 per cent. of the population, but benefit from only 32 per cent. of spending? The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that a Labour Government would provide no extra money for the NHS, and that the Labour party will fight to prevent redistribution of money away from London to where people actually live. My constituents and others would suffer the effects of such Labour policies.

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will have other opportunites to make his point in the House, but I cannot say when we shall be able to have another debate on the NHS in Government time. My hon. Friend has made the important point, which should be made constantly, that the Opposition have made it clear that they will not be able to spend any more on the NHS than we have.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Is it not remarkable that we have not debated the Gulf since 21 January—a few days after the outbreak of war? If the outcome of the war did not justify a debate, surely developments in Iraq since then have shown that a debate is long overdue.

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said, I am aware of the desire of many hon. Members to debate this matter, but we must wait for an appropriate time. There are many pressures on Government time between now and the summer recess.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether we could have a debate on the disgraceful, unspecific and cowardly attack on a highly respected public servant, the Hon. David Gore-Booth—particularly when that attack has been co-ordinated by people who have at heart not the interests of the United Kingdom, but the interests of a foreign country, which has quite rightly been the subject of widespread criticism in the House.

Mr. MacGregor: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred to that at Question Time today. I was unable to be present, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Ron Brown: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, SAI in my constituency is likely to close. That is a disgrace, because it is the most efficient fertiliser plant in the United Kingdom. Jobs are important in Leith and throughout the United Kingdom. Can we have a debate about that issue at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. MacGregor: I cannot promise a debate on a specific plant. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, he will have to do so in other ways.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Further to the point of order that I raised on Friday, when I urged Treasury Ministers to come to the House to justify and extend the excellent policies that have led to a dramatic fall in the rate of inflation, can my right hon. Friend find time for a debate so that the House may fully understand that the Government have reduced inflation from 10·5 to 6·4 per cent.? Has my right hon. Friend noted that that rate compares with an average of 15·5 per cent. under the previous Labour Government? The present Government understand that beating inflation is the only way to remove a socially divisive disease. That underlines our estimate of caring. By allowing inflation to rip when it was in office, the Labour party damaged the people who could least afford to be affected. This Government care and a Labour Government cannot deliver their promises.

Mr. MacGregor: I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Reducing inflation to levels comparable with those of our major competitors is the Government's overriding


priority. I am sure that there will be opportunities throughout the summer and beyond, as inflation continues to come down, to make the points that my hon. Friend has made.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House consider having an early debate—perhaps immediately after the spring recess—on the problems facing the car industry? Grave concern has been expressed about the effect of Government policies on the industry. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should arrange such a debate?

Mr. MacGregor: I must make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that we have a heavy legislative programme to complete in Government time. There are many opportunities for debates outside Government time, and that is how the subject will have to be pursued.

Mr. John Marshall: The debate on 7 June should be on the future government of London, as many people regard the proposed Greater London authority as bureaucratic, bolshevik and unwanted. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed Greater London authority would have more elected members than the old Greater London council? Is he aware that London Labour councils have the worst record for the collection of rates and for empty council houses, whereas Conservative councils have the best school records in London?

Mr. MacGregor: My hon. Friend makes some effective points. As I said, I do not believe that the people of London want a return to the GLC.

Mr. Ian McCartney: Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a statement to the House on the continued infiltration of the British security industry by organised crime, especially in the leisure industry? More people are killed and injured each year in Britain by rogue bouncers than by rogue dogs. Every day of the week, someone is injured or even killed by bouncers whose companies have been infiltrated by organised crime. The Secretary of State should make a statement on regulating the industry to drive bouncer companies and those who are involved in organised crime out of legitimate interests such as security.

Mr. MacGregor: I shall not go into the issues or respond to the allegations that the hon. Gentleman made, but he asked for a statement. I do not know whether a statement would be appropriate, but my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is in the Chamber and will have heard what he said.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I wholeheartedly support the request that was made by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and by some of my hon. Friends for a further debate on the provision of health care so that we can set out again and again the Government's superb record in the past 12 years, so that I can draw attention to the brand new £18 million community hospital in Cannock and to the increased employment opportunities at the Mental Health Foundation for Mid-Staffordshire NHS trust, so that I may expose the shroud-waving hypocrisy of Opposition Members and so that the Labour party may formally, on

the Floor of the House, retract the disgraceful allegations contained in the notorious leaflet that it issued at Monmouth, which suggested that NHS trust hospitals were opting out of the NHS?

Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that there will be many opportunities for my hon. Friend to make his effective points about the considerable progress in his constituency and about the Labour party's policy. There will be opportunities, therefore, to continue to ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the allegations that were made in the leaflet to which my hon. Friend drew attention.

Mr. Dave Nellist: May we have a debate to explore why the Government acquiesced last Saturday in allowing General Augusto Pinochet to arrive at British Aerospace's private aerodrome at Hatfield? On a day when millions of people are mourning the assassination of the former Prime Minister of India, Rajiv Gandhi, can the Government have forgotten that Pinochet organised the assassination of the elected President of Chile, Salvador Allende, and in the 1970s and 1980s murdered thousands of decent people in Chile? Is it now Government policy that, after a set number of years, the murder of a head of state is a sanatised, politically acceptable act, as long as the perpetrator is coming here to buy arms?

Mr. MacGregor: I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's remarks to my right hon. Friend's attention, but I cannot see scope for a debate on the issue in the forthcoming week.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend give further urgent consideration to the possibility of having a debate on a national minimum wage? Although the Labour Fabian Society has made it clear that such a policy would cost 800,000 jobs, and although we all know that the figure would be twice as high, does not it remain a key policy of the Labour party, and should not we have a chance to debate it as a matter of urgency in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is clear that that proposal will result in the loss of a very considerable number of jobs. It is interesting that the Fabian Society now corroborates that fact and gives its own estimate. We shall have many opportunities in the weeks ahead to continue to make these points, and I note the embarassment of the Labour party every time the proposal for a national minimum wage is raised.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: The Leader of the House said last week that it would be inappropriate to have a debate on the future of ICI, on the ground that
That would be a matter for the takeover panel".—[Official Report, 16 May 1991; Vol. 191, c. 433.]
Last Friday, the takeover panel gave the green light to Hanson, the asset stripper, causing a great deal of concern in the country at large and to many of my constituents who work for ICI. Will the Leader of the House consider the provision of time to debate this important matter—we are dealing here with the leading manufacturer and second largest exporter in this country—or does he intend to wait for the recess, when Hanson can act without our having any democratic input whatsoever?

Mr. MacGregor: There is no question of our waiting for the recess. We do not have a situation in which action of


the sort that I outlined might have to be taken. In my comments last week on referrals, I mentioned not only the takeover panel but also two other bodies. We are not in a situation in which that action is triggered. That being the case, it would not be appropriate to have a debate.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I support the suggestion that we should have a debate on the visit of General Pinochet to this country. That would give us an opportunity to highlight the fact that the Government neither received General Pinochet nor conferred on him an order of knighthood, as happened during the term of the last Labour Government, when President Ceausescu visited this country.

Mr. MacGregor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point that he has made.

Mr. Max Madden: May I ask the Leader of the House to accept that, following the savage attack on Rucksana Khan, the vast majority of people understand that if effective action is to be taken against dangerous dogs it must he based on a national dog register? Will the Leader of the House ensure that when the Government's Bill is introduced it will be debated as quickly as possible, and that it will be framed in such a. way as to enable the House to take a clear decision on the establishment of a national dog register? Will he give an undertaking that, if an amendment to this end is moved, Conservative Members will have a free vote so that they may support something that clearly now has the support of a vast majority of the British people?

Mr. MacGregor: I have already expressed my own view. I do not believe that the issue to be addressed by the Bill—an issue about which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a statement shortly—is related to a dog registration scheme. It is important that the Bill should focus on the emergency measures that are necessary to prevent, if possible, any further tragic incidents such as the one that involved the hon. Gentleman's constituent. That is the importance of getting on quickly with this measure.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: As my right hon. Friend has not yet decided the business for 7 June, may I commend to him the idea of arranging a debate on the need for a national lottery, for which there is a great deal of support among Conservative Members?

Mr. MacGregor: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion, but it is unlikely that we shall be able to debate that matter for a whole day, as many other issues have been raised. My hon. Friend knows very well that there are other ways in which he personally can pursue the matter.

Mr. Norman Hogg: As the Leader of the House will be aware, there has been only one item of Scottish legislation this Session. Therefore, as has been pointed out already, we have had very little opportunity to debate Scottish issues. Can the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on the Scottish economy, the Scottish national health service, or primary school testing in Scotland, all of which are matters of policy in which there is considerable public interest? It is a very long time since there was any Scottish debate on the Floor of the House, and there has certainly been no debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Mr. MacGregor: I will bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point. I am sure that he recognises that there are many opportunities for those issues to be raised in other debates in the House. However, I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May we have a statement on the reporting of national health service matters to Parliament and in particular on the question of trusts? May we have an assurance in that statement that there will be no distinction in the way in which questions on health service trusts are answered as opposed to questions about other hospitals that remain in the national health service? At the moment, questions about the internal workings of hospitals can be answered fully by Ministers. May we have the same assurance about questions on health service trust matters?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman is again misleading the House and making the wrong point if he tries to suggest that somehow trust hospitals are outside the NHS. My right hon. and hon. Friends will continue to answer questions fully on the health service.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for a debate at the earliest possible moment on the safety of fishermen and fishing vessels? If that is not possible, may we have in the very near future—perhaps in the first week after the recess— a statement from the Secretary of State for Transport on the regulations governing the safety of our fishermen? For some years I have been seeking to persuade the Department of Transport to invoke regulations allowing for the provision of immersion suits on fishing vessels. The Department of Transport has refused that sensible measure. I discovered yesterday that the European Commission is to introduce a draft directive on the safety of fishermen that will include among many other things the provision of immersion suits on all fishing vessels above a certain size. Why is the European Community leading us? The Government should have taken such a decision years ago.

Mr. MacGregor: I am not aware of that particular Commission proposal, if indeed it is such at this stage. However, I will raise that point with my two right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters.

Mr. Peter Hain: Will the Leader of the House find time after the recess to allow the Government to repudiate the disgraceful behaviour of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) who has been parading her pro-apartheid views around South Africa, including—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member has not been here very long. Normally, if that kind of attack is made on another hon. Member, prior notice is given about it.

Mr. Hain: It may be a case of post-prime ministerial senility.

Mr. MacGregor: That question shows that the hon. Gentleman has a great deal to learn in this House. I certainly do not intend to find time to respond to a charge of that kind.

Dangerous Dogs

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): With permission, I would like to make a statement about dangerous dogs.
As we are all aware, there have been a number of recent attacks by dogs which have left their victims very badly injured. The first of those was the horrific attack on 8 May by two pit bull terriers on Mr. Frank Tempest, which has left him with severe facial and other injuries. The second was an attack on a two-year-old child by a pit bull terrier owned by her grandparents. The third incident, which took place last Saturday, left a six-year-old Bradford girl, Rucksana Khan, very seriously injured. The whole House will wish to join me in expressing sympathy for the victims of those dreadful attacks and our wishes for their recovery. Those most recent attacks were of a different degree of seriousness altogether from the great majority of dog-biting incidents.
All three were carried out by American pit bull terriers. The American pit bull terrier is a cross-breed dog, specifically bred for fighting and, in many cases, trained to be aggressive. As has been tragically shown, it is capable of vicious and sustained assault without warning or provocation. Once a pit bull terrier has started an attack, it has been shown to be impossible for full-grown adults to prevent the dog from causing horrific injuries.
The public are increasingly concerned about attacks by those vicious dogs and are entitled to look to the Government to take action to tackle the problem. I have therefore decided to bring before the House as soon as possible this Session legislation which will ban the breeding and ownership of pit bull terriers and other dogs bred especially for fighting. Also included in the ban will be the Japanese tosa, a dog bred for fighting which, apparently, can weigh up to 17 stone. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, we have taken action to ban the import of those dogs, as from midnight last night.
I emphasise that the ban will initially apply only to those breeds of fighting dogs, but it is clearly important to prevent new and dangerous breeds coming in to replace dogs which have been banned from domestic ownership. I understand that there are three other possible breeds in the world today.
The legislation will therefore include powers to add other types of fighting dogs to those which are banned.
It is essential to rid the country of the danger from such dogs. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in the House yesterday, they have no place in our homes. Owners of those fighting dogs may be able to return them to their country of origin.
It has been put to me that it would be possible to make those dogs safe by neutering them. I am advised that that policy is unlikely to be effective. I am ready to consider further evidence on that point with experts, including the veterinary profession. If that will not be effective, the ban on dogs bred for fighting will mean, sadly, that those types of dogs have to be put down.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the veterinary profession have also suggested that there could be some specific and very tightly drawn exemptions to the ban, and I will be considering that suggestion. I am also considering the question of compensation for owners whose dogs are destroyed.
There were many attacks by dogs last year. The types of dogs responsible for those attacks are numerous, and include breeds such as alsatians, rottweilers, terriers and collies. Many of those attacks, unfortunately, can be laid at the door of irresponsible owners. The Government have always recognised that. The Dangerous Dogs Act 1989 made the law to control dogs more effective. Courts can now guarantee the destruction of any dog which has shown itself to be dangerous and, as a result, it is quickly put down. That is an important step forward.
Last year, the Government issued a consultation paper on the control of dogs and proposed a number of measures to bring about the safer control of dogs and powers to penalise the irresponsible owner. The response to the consultation paper shows an encouraging measure of support for such action. That includes a tougher criminal offence to penalise dog owners, whatever the breed, who fail to keep their dogs safely under control in public, as well as a power to allow a court to specify the control of a particular dog of any type. That could include muzzling.
The Leader of the Opposition indicated in the House yesterday that the Opposition would co-operate in getting such measures on to the statute book as quickly as possible. I hope that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) will confirm that in his response today.
Dogs, Mr. Speaker, can provide companionship, friendship and comfort, and they do that for many people, but there is a clear distinction in the public's mind between the domestic pet and a dog that is bred to fight and kill. I hope that our proposals to ban those most dangerous of dogs will therefore command the full support of the House and pass quickly into law.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I first join the Home Secretary in offering the Opposition's sympathy for the victims of dog attacks—about 10 a month—who have suffered over the past two years, particularly those to whom our attention was drawn this afternoon? May I go on to welcome the proposal to ban the import of specified categories of vicious dogs and the Government's intention to legislate for the prohibition of their ownership?
The Home Secretary will not be surprised to receive our support for a policy to reduce the number of attacks by such dogs. During the Committee proceedings on the Environmental Protection Bill in March 1990, the Opposition made comprehensive proposals that covered all that he has said today. Those proposals were rejected by the Government and voted down despite Opposition support.
The Home Secretary asked for the Opposition's specific agreement to facilitate the passage of necessary legislation. Of course he has that assurance. The problem is that none of us can be clear what the Home Secretary means by the intentionally imprecise phrase "such legislation", other than the specific ban on a limited number of species. Other action is necessary, but the Home Secretary simply says that there may be legislation providing tougher penalties for owners whose dogs are not kept under proper control. He says that there could be a law requiring muzzling.
Today's statement was disappointingly vague, and will be seen as inadequate by all who have already complained that the Government are not acting with sufficient speed or resolution. This is no time for doubt or prevarication. With 10 serious attacks taking place each month, action is


urgently needed, and I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what that should include, in addition to the general prohibition announced today.
Of course, the responsibility for preventing attacks must lie with the dog's owners. My questions are about the Home Secretary's willingness, or will, to take the necessary action to ensure that dog owners behave responsibly.
First, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce stringent safety rules requiring all owners of potentially dangerous dogs to keep them in secure conditions and to allow them into public places only under such control that the safety of the public is assured? That must usually mean their being kept on leads and muzzled.
Secondly, does the right hon. Gentleman understand that there are some breeds of dog which, although they are occasionally dangerous, it would be wrong to prohibit altogether? Nevertheless, we believe that there must be some safety standards for their ownership, so I ask the Home Secretary to introduce substantial penalties for any infringement of the safety rules that I have described. Will he provide the necessary resources to ensure that those rules are enforced?
Thirdly, will the right hon. Gentleman place an obligation on owners of specified potentially dangerous breeds to take out third party insurance cover so that those whom such dogs damage can be compensated? In one other respect, the right hon. Gentleman was less than precise. Why are rottweilers not to be included in the prohibited category? They are often advertised as having an aggressive temperament, and in the past they have been responsible for vicious attacks. One was responsible for an attack on two police officers only yesterday.
Finally, the Home Secretary knows that virtually all authorities on the care and control of dogs insist that protection and prohibition cannot work successfully without the introduction of a national registration scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Such a scheme would be good for the welfare of dogs as well as for the protection of human beings. It would reduce the number of dogs obtained casually and callously abandoned within a few days. It would enable the Government effectively to enforce their other proposals. Why does the Home Secretary object so much to the idea? He was a great enthusiast for a register of people so as to implement the poll tax; why should we not have a register of dogs to protect the welfare of animals and the safety of citizens?

Mr. Baker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the broad thrust of what I have said about our proposals to deal with fighting dogs. I understand that he believes in and supports our proposal to prohibit not only import but ownership. I welcome that.
I welcome, too, the right hon. Gentleman's support on other matters relating to general legislation on dogs, and I should make it clear that I intend the Bill to make it a criminal offence. with a severe penalty, to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place. That would apply to all breeds. I also hope that the Bill will clear up the definition of the word "control" and allow the courts specifically to require muzzling of certain dogs in some circumstances. That can be effectively policed. I hope that we can agree on those matters, too.
The right hon. Gentleman specifically asked about compulsory insurance. I have some sympathy with the idea, and I understand that many household insurance policies cover injuries caused by owners' dogs. However,

measures relating to insurance may be rather more complicated than the other measures, and may not be ready in time for the Bill, which I hope to introduce shortly after Whitsun. I do not rule out the idea for further legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether rottweilers should be included. In defining the group of dangerous dogs bred to fight and kill, I sought to draw a clear distinction between such dogs and other dogs. Rottweilers are not bred to fight and kill. Of course, I discussed the matter with the Kennel Club, the RSPCA and the veterinary associations yesterday. They said that there was a clear distinction between dogs bred over decades, or in some cases centuries, to fight and kill, and other pedigree dogs.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman argued again for registration, and I believe that a scheme will be in the Labour manifesto when the election comes. I do not believe that a general registration scheme would have had any effect on the dreadful incident last weekend. If that dog had been registered for £5 and had had a computer number on its collar, it would not have been prevented from attacking that little girl. Moreover, the argument for a registration scheme is that it would identify the owner with the dog. In all the recent incidents, the identification of the owner has not been the problem. The owners have been known in each case.
I am glad that I shall have the support of the right hon. Member and the Labour party on much of the legislation, although I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman on his last point.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I draw to the attention of the House the fact that there are 27 groups of amendments to be debated on the subsequent Bill and that there is an order after that. I shall allow questions on this matter to continue until 5.15 pm. I ask those hon. Members who are called to be brief because it will enable as many hon. Members as possible to be included.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: While expressing our sympathy to the victims of these appalling attacks and welcoming the Government's proposed ban on two species of fighter dogs, does not the Home Secretary recognise that, in proposing his Bill in such vague and uncertain terms, he betrays the Government's unwillingness to tackle the problem of dangerous dogs at root? He has not even made it plain that, in respect of the two breeds to be banned, he is prepared to take the advice of those who say that neutering would be adequate.
Why has the Home Secretary set his face against measures more comprehensive than those which will apply to the two breeds? Of the 465 cases of serious dog attacks in the metropolis of London in the past year, only 111 were by American pit bull terriers. The Home Secretary may believe that it is adequate to tackle a quarter of the problem, but many people in Britain will feel that the Government are falling sadly short.

Mr. Baker: The measures that I have announced represent a comprehensive package affecting all breeds of dogs. The measures on dogs which are out of control in a


public place and on control orders involving muzzling of specific dogs have the strong support of the Kennel Club and the RSPCA.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I did not take the advice that the specified families of dangerous dogs should simply be neutered. I have discussed the matter with the various interests. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, if dogs can be made safe by neutering, I shall be prepared to consider it. However, my advice is that a neutered dog can be just as vicious.
The important point to appreciate about pit bull terriers and other cross-breeds is that they are completely unpredictable. That marks them out from other dogs. They can be friendly and docile one minute and complete killers the next. After the last three incidents, the owners said, "Our dog could not possibly have done that. It was friendly." I shall, of course, consider neutering, but I would have to be satisfied that it would secure safety.
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the words of Mr. Roger Mugford, one of the most highly regarded animal psychologists in Britain and a writer on dogs. He said:
All pit bulls go bad—it is just a countdown from when they are 12 months old.

Mr. Robert Hayward: My right hon. Friend will be aware of a tragic case in my constituency last year. When the case ultimately came to court, the magistrate did not order the destruction of the dog, even though the hospital had to place 100 stitches in a young girl's face and upper body. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that, in the legislation and in his discussions with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General, magistrates are given strict and clear guidelines that dogs should be destroyed in such tragic cases?

Mr. Baker: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about that incident. He has seen me about it. It would be wrong for me as Home Secretary or, I suspect, for the Lord Chancellor to comment on the sentence passed by a court. However, I am sure that the fact that he has mentioned it in the House will be noticed by many people.

Mr. Terry Lewis: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement this afternoon, especially as two of the items in it were clearly addressed in early-day motion 840, which I tabled before the three tragic accidents last weekend. May I go further with the Home Secretary and reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said about a dog registration scheme? I shall certainly support today's announcement when it is translated into a Bill. However, it does not go nearly far enough. It does not address other problems with dogs in society, which the Home Secretary must tackle.
We need a comprehensive Dogs Act and a neutering programme, we must stop puppy farming and we must engage in an exercise to promote responsible dog ownership. That can be done only through a dog registration scheme. Only the fossilised remains who run the Kennel Club are opposed to such a scheme. Every other organisation in the land which has the welfare of animals and especially dogs at heart is in favour of a scheme. We shall have a scheme in Britain. If the Home

Secretary is not forced by the political consequences of the dithering that has taken place to introduce a scheme before the general election, we shall introduce one after it.

Mr. Baker: I will say to the hon. Gentleman what I said to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I do not believe that, if a registration scheme had been in operation, it would have had any effect on the recent incidents. Many of the owners of these breeds of dog would pay scant regard to registration. I must be frank with the House on that. When I talk to police forces about some of the people who own such dogs, they tell me that such people would not register. I appreciate that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook would try to enforce this scheme, but I remind him that, in the Republic of Ireland, where there is a dog registration scheme, in spite of attempts to enforce it, the authorities have managed to register only a third of dogs so far.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today. He may not be aware of a recent case in my constituency in Yardley Wood, in which a young girl was severely attacked by the family pet, which was not one of the dangerous breeds that he has specified. The attack happened while the dog was being fed. Therefore, I welcome the emphasis that my right hon. Friend has placed on responsible ownership. I hope that he will do all that he can further to promote responsible ownership of dogs.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend has said. Fortunately, the great majority of dog owners are responsible. One can never exclude the possibilities of incidents in the home with any sort of dog. One only hopes that the dog has been trained by the owner to ensure that incidents do not take place.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Home Secretary accept that his announcement is welcome but belated? If it were not for Rucksana Khan's tragic accident, the Government would not have taken action, despite a long list of similar accidents. Why does not the Home Secretary take immediate action to add such breeds as rottweilers and dobermans, which are also responsible for serious accidents, to the schedule of the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976? That would immediately give powers to local authorities to license owners, inspect premises and ensure that proper standards are maintained, bearing in mind public safety.
Why does not the Home Secretary ensure that the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the provisions of the Animal Health Act 1981 on muzzling are enforced as a matter of urgency, rather than wait for the legislation to come to the House, when a dozen more accidents might take place in the meantime?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman has not studied it in enough detail. If he had studied the Act a little more carefully, he would have discovered that canus familiaris is specifically excluded from the Act. Therefore, I could not designate certain dogs. That is the reason why we are introducing a measure to identify a group of dogs. We cannot call them a breed. They are a species of dogs and a series of cross-breeds that have to be defined as carefully as we can to ensure that we cover them properly and make sure that the courts will be able to take action against them. One thing that is agreed between the RSPCA, the Kennel Club, the British Veterinary Association and


ourselves is that we want those types of dogs to be removed from our society permanently. They made that very clear to me yesterday. What we are examining is the way in which that can be done.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) criticise the Government earlier this afternoon for not introducing a Bill next week. Those of us on this side of the House who are members of the all-party animal welfare group are heartily relieved that my right hon. Friend is not adopting a populist or knee-jerk reaction. We are very grateful for the level of consultation that has taken place so far. May we hope that that consultation will continue, that the level of flexibility that has already been shown will continue and that my right hon. Friend will be open to suggestions before the Bill is brought before the House?

Mr. Baker: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to consult the various dog interests. I had useful and interesting meetings with them yesterday. As I have already said, there is an identity of interest. It was clear that the RSPCA, the Kennel Club and the British Veterinary Association want to see the elimination of these dogs from our country. They do not want them. It is a question of how we achieve that. They do not want them because these dogs are unpredictable. They can be very gentle one moment and killers the next. We cannot judge their behaviour in future by their behaviour in the past. We have made it very clear that we want to achieve the same objective.

Mr. David Young: As a Bolton girl was involved in one of these incidents, I join those hon. Members who have expressed sympathy for the relatives and for all those who have been injured in these attacks. How does the Minister propose to deal with crossbreeding? Does he accept that, although we would agree to the putting down of animals, it ought to be a measure of last resort?
How does the Minister propose quickly to make this a criminal offence so that people have easy redress? It is bad dog owners who are responsible. We can put down the dogs but not the owners. If the Minister does not intend to have dog registration, does he accept that people who own potentially dangerous dogs that are not on his list should register them at the police station, in the same way as lethal weapons are registered?

Mr. Baker: By identifying these dogs and putting them into this category, one would be eliminating these types of dog. Those who favour neutering will realise that that is the end of the species; if the dogs are all neutered there can be no future puppies. I have already said that I will examine all this, but it would inevitably lead to a large number of dogs being put down. I must ask the House to remember how vicious and deadly these dogs can be. They are trained to fight and to kill. The pit bull terrier has a pressure in its head of 1,000 lb per square inch. It can pull several weights weighing several thousand pounds. They are trained to do that by chasing live cats that are then fed to them.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will my right hon. Friend accept that he moved with commendable speed— I must confess almost electric, in Home Office terms, in being able to do so quite so quickly? Will he advise on whether or not

the problem about bringing an owner to prosecution is affected by the fact that the dog itself has been destroyed? I understand that, if the dog is destroyed, no proceedings can be brought against the owner. Can that be put right?

Mr. Baker: If a dog is destroyed under the changes that we propose to make, and if the owner is found to have been guilty of having it dangerously out of control in a public place, proceedings will be taken against the owner. It is always possible, of course, for civil actions to be brought against owners, if negligence can be proved.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Home Secretary realise that, although he has named breeds of dog, his real problem is not breeds of dog but types of dog that are bred with the blood lust in them to kill? How will he deal with that problem if he has to go to the court with each individual dog to get that dog muzzled? Surely the only sensible way to deal with the problem is to have a licensing authority that has the power either to grant or to deny a licence to keep a particular dog. Such a licence should not be granted for any dog unless the owner also has insurance against the damage that the dog might cause.

Mr. Baker: As I said, we are dealing with a particular group of dangerous fighting dogs. It is not a question of licensing them and letting them go on. The dog interests in the country clearly want these types of dog to be removed from our society. That is the purpose and the intention. The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point about definition. All dogs are of the same species. It is not possible to determine the type of dog by a method such as DNA fingerprinting. The existence of pedigree allows us to distinguish certain breeds, but the cross-breeds are very difficult to define scientifically or legally.
I have consulted experts about the definition. We plan to specify in the ban the type of dog commonly known as the pit bull terrier and the Japanese tosa, together with other dogs that appear to have been bred for fighting. I believe that these definitions can be made to stand up. We shall also take powers in the Bill to ensure that they can be tightened up should scientific knowledge in this area change and should it become easier to define dogs.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: As a former breeder and show judge of great Danes— [Interruption.] I know that we all look like our pets, but do not be rude to me— and also as a former boarding kennel owner, may I say that the vast majority of the big breeds have lovely natures? It is only a tiny minority that are bred by irresponsible breeders. Bona fide breeders will not use bad temperament in their breeds to produce puppies. I am sure that the Home Secretary has heard that from the Kennel Club.
In the case of the pit bull terrier, we are talking about exterminating the complete breed. Whether we call it a breed or a species, we have a problem. Some of the pit bull terriers will be used to produce half-breeds and three-quarter-breeds. It will take an expert to decide whether it is a pit bull terrier. Notwithstanding that fact, I honestly feel that, because some of those dogs are real pets and have been with their families for many years, we ought to give their owners a reasonable time to find homes for them in countries where it is not illegal to have them. That would be a humane approach. We should not give them too long, but they ought to be given long enough, if we are to be humane.

Mr. Baker: I had not appreciated that my hon. Friend was a big breeder. [Laughter] I said "breeder". I have some sympathy with his point. If some of these dogs have been imported and the countries from which they came are prepared to take them back, a reasonable time should be allowed. However, most other countries in the world are introducing legislation that is very similar to what we are doing in the United Kingdom about these dogs.

Mr. Alan Williams: May I remind the Home Secretary that one attack every third day in the London area alone would have been avoided if only the Home Office had responded to an early-day motion tabled by 50 of us on 1 May 1990 warning of the nature of just these animals and the need to ban them.
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman more precisely about compensation? That is crucial. This breed of dog is possessed all too often by people of an irresponsible disposition. There are over 10,000 of these dogs. Does the Home Secretary recognise the danger that, if just 10 per cent. of them were to decide to abandon their dogs instead of destroying them, we should have 1,000 of these vicious dogs loose on our streets? Therefore, we need to know more about compensation, which will cost about £5 million. Will the Government pay that, or will it be paid by the councils?

Mr. Baker: On the question of owners abandoning their dogs, that would be an act of criminal irresponsibility, and I am therefore making it a criminal offence to permit a banned dog to stray. Those who act in that way would risk going to prison and would thoroughly deserve it. We are certainly considering a compensation scheme and will possibly allow some time for owners who wish to bring forward their dogs in that period to receive it.
Yesterday, I asked the RSPCA what it thought about the matter. It favours a compensation scheme, and when I asked about the level of compensation the RSPCA thought that for one of these fighting dogs with the fighting value taken out compensation should be about £20 to £25.

Mr. Andrew Bowden: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed by the nation. Does he accept that it must not be used as the first step in a vendetta against dogs by dog haters inside and outside the House? Dr. Roger Mugford, to whom my right hon. Friend referred, and who is a distinguished dog psychologist, is, like me, a member of the national advisory panel Pro-dogs and believes that a dog registration scheme would not work. It is utterly irresponsible for some people to pretend that such a scheme is a magic panacea for dealing with all the problems. It is no solution to the problem of dangerous dogs.

Mr. Baker: I thank my hon. Friend for his support, and agree entirely with his comments. Those with the greatest enthusiasm for a dog registration scheme have great difficulty in arguing that it would have affected the events of the past few weeks. I do not think that it would have affected them and such a scheme would be exceedingly difficult to enforce.
I assure my hon. Friend that our proposed measure is not anti-dog. Many dogs in our country give great pleasure and comfort to their owners, and their owners are responsible. We are dealing with a particularly difficult type of dog that has been bred specifically to kill and to

fight. Fighting in private is illegal here, although it is not illegal in some parts of the world. Our Bill is directed against such practices, and at the same time it will impose some general obligations with which the responsible dog owner would have no difficulty in complying.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we have another 14 minutes on the statement. I hope to call most hon. Members who have been rising. I hope that they will be brief and will not repeat questions that have already been asked.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman call for a report from Lothian police on the case of the pit bull dog that has been terrorising the Boghall housing estate in Bathgate? What is the scientific evidence to which he referred about the lust for blood and the very real dangers that girls face at obvious times?

Mr. Baker: I was not aware of the incident, and I shall certainly ask for a report. If the hon. Gentleman has any information about it, I would be glad to see it.

Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Inevitably, there will be a lapse of time between the Bill's introduction and the implementation of its parts. Many people want to protect themselves against dangerous dogs. Has his Department carried out any evaluation of electronic hand-held devices which repel dogs? Such devices are widely available and are being promoted by mail order businesses. It is important that people who buy such devices know that they afford some protection and are not just completely useless toys.

Mr. Baker: We have not carried out any evaluation of these devices, but I am aware of them and shall certainly have them examined. I suspect that that is not really the ultimate answer to what we are dealing with. The ultimate answer has to be more responsible dog owners and the elimination of dangerous fighting dogs.

Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Does the Home Secretary recall that, over the past two and a half years I, in common with some of my hon. Friends, have warned him in an early-day motion as well as in correspondence of the neigbourhood threat posed by pit bull terriers, and invited him to compel their owners to register them with the local police? It is evident to the entire House that he has been most reluctant to move in this matter. Now he is rushing towards a conclusion.
Although we accept much of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, some of us are entitled to doubt his judgment. He might get it wrong again. Is he justified in risking penalising the good, responsible owner? Is there no other way to deal with the breed? The right hon. Gentleman speaks with all the zeal of the convert, but what about alternative measures such as securing the dogs in a compound and muzzling them when they take exercise and, of course, registering them? Will he invite the neighbourhood watch schemes to incorporate in their terms of reference the reporting of such threats that arise in their areas?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that registering dogs would have effectively stopped the savage attacks in Lincolnshire, when two pit bull terriers in a


compound surrounded by a fence about 8ft high and a concrete floor jumped out of it, savaged a man, and destroyed his face. I would he happy to show the hon. Gentleman pictures of that man's face. It does not exist.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: When it comes to the method of removing the menace of the 5,000 or 10,0000 pit bull terriers in this country, will my right hon. Friend be careful about the argument that a programme of neutering would do the job? Does not the American record show that some of the 34 deaths and many hundreds of attacks in that country have been caused by pit bull terriers that had been neutered? Since that is the case, is there any alternative to a programme of humane extermination?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend may prove to be right. I said that I would be prepared to look into this matter. Neutering a dog does not necessarily render it less savage; it could still savage people or other dogs. My hon. Friend proffers wise counsel. Many people would like to believe that neutering is the solution and that neutered dogs would be able to live out their natural lives. They would have to be muzzled and kept in compounds with fences that are even higher than 8ft. Such controls and conditions could be introduced, but it would be a matter for owners whether to comply with them.

Ms. Diane Abbott: Why will not the Home Secretary accept that public concern is not confined to these two breeds? Public concern is about the irresponsible owner who keeps potentially vicious breeds, such as rottweilers and dobermans, not as family pets or companions but as potential offensive weapons. Such people can be seen every day swaggering up and down the streets of our inner cities. Such irresponsible ownership cannot be tackled without dog registration. How long will the Government set their face against public opinion in this matter?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Lady speaks of the problem of irresponsible owners, but they are the very last people to register a dog. I do not agree with her general condemnation of certain dogs. The dogs that she mentioned are not trained to fight and kill.

Mr. Michael Colvin: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I remind him how much the House dislikes retrospective legislation? We shall look most carefully at the Bill's provisions for exemptions. Will he ensure that any exemptions are coupled with adequate safeguards, such as muzzling and proper insurance? If he wants to know the sort of dog to which I refer, he has only to go to St. Stephen's entrance now and meet Mrs. Juliet Glass, who is there with three-year-old Holly, an American pit bull terrier. Holly has been spayed and my right hon. Friend and any other hon. Member who makes Holly's acquaintance will confirm that it would not hurt a flea, never mind a human being.

Mr. Baker: The three owners of the dogs which recently committed these appalling attacks all said that the dogs were very quiet, friendly and peaceful and that people could stroke them and play with them. The characteristic of these cross-breeds is their unpredictability. They can change very quickly, and when they decide to attack, the jaws cannot be prised open. They go on until they kill. They can be muzzled in a public place, but the second of

the incidents happened when grandparents were with their granddaughter. It is unreasonable to think that a dog can be muzzled throughout its life.

Mr. John McAllion: The Home Secretary referred to different degrees of seriousness in attacks involving American pit bull terriers. I remind him that my constituent, Kelly Lynch, was killed in a savage attack by two rottweilers more than two years ago. Her family and friends will not be convinced that the right hon. Gentleman's statement shows that the Government have acted urgently or adequately.
Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand that, without the dog registration scheme, he cannot begin to know the true levels of ownership of dangerous dogs? Without an adequate licence fee, the resources will not be available to establish a national network of effective dog warden schemes. Without those two basic building blocks, the whole edifice of dog control that he has announced will be built on sand and will not survive.

Mr. Baker: I have commented on our views about the registration scheme, but I continue to be unpersuaded that it would have a significant effect. On the question of rottweilers, as I said, the RSPCA and the Kennel Club, both of which support a ban on the ownership of pit bulls, would not support a ban on rottweilers, which are a recognised breed of dog. I am not convinced that rottweilers fall into the same category of unpredictable viciousness as pit bull terriers.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: As with dangerous weapons when carried in a public place, we have, in the public interest, reversed the presumption of innocence. Could we not use the same approach to deal with what will inevitably be the grey area of defining a pit bull terrier? The last thing that we want is for a smart alec lawyer to drive a coach and horses through much-needed legislation the first time that it comes to court.

Mr. Baker: I take my hon. Friend's comment, and I think that he makes a good point. If there is a dispute about whether a dog is of a banned type, the dog owner will have an opportunity to prove that the dog is not a pit bull, a tosa or another banned type by producing a certificate from two veterinary surgeons. That is an important safeguard, but in cases of doubt, the onus will be on the owner to prove that his dog should not be banned.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Many of my constituents will be extremely disappointed that the Minister is again setting his face against a dog registration scheme, which is seen as the sine qua non of the control of many aspects of dogs' behaviour. Will he clarify how today's statement relates to Scotland? It is most unusual for the Home Secretary to give a statement that covers Scotland. Indeed, I understand from a note that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland who has had to leave the Front Bench that the legislation will be amended under the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
As the Home Secretary is the only Minister to make a statement today, can he say whether, if there will be separate legislation for Scotland, it will be open to the Committee that deals with it to suggest separate proposals relevant to the Scottish experience as related by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and


by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan)? In Scotland, no more than a quarter of the deeply worrying incidents that take place would relate to the species covered by the announcement today. It must go wider, and I should like the Home Secretary's assurance that, in Scottish terms, it can go wider.

Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has agreed that the legislation should extend to Scotland which shares much of its legislation for controlling dogs with England and Wales.

Mr. Jim Lester: With regard to third party insurance, my right hon. Friend might be reassured to know that most people who have comprehensive house insurance, whether or not they have a dog, will find that third party insurance for a dog's actions is already included so that there is no need to have an additional policy. My right hon. Friend is already undertaking consultation, but will he also consult the National Canine Defence League, of which I am a council member and which has a valid point to make about people, dogs and breeds, so that he has a complete consultation procedure with all those who take an interest in the welfare of dogs and in their continuation?

Mr. Baker: On the latter point, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. On insurance, it is perfectly true that some insurance policies— but by no means all— cover damage caused by dogs. However, very few insurance companies will cover the insurance of fighting breeds and, indeed, specifically refuse to do so. The companies have no difficulty in defining a fighting breed to justify their refusal of insurance.

Mr. John Fraser: Does the Home Secretary recall that after disclosures in the South London Press I put down a motion asking for an import ban on tosa dogs? At the time, I was advised that the powers to ban the import of those dogs did not exist. If the Home Secretary is satisfied that he has those powers, which he exercised from midnight, what exactly are they? If he is not certain about them, will he ensure that the law is amended so that he has the power to ban the import of dogs on the basis of breed and characteristics?

Mr. Baker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the powers do exist under the Department of Trade and Industry's legislation and they were exercised last night. The difficulty has been to define the type of dog. It is easier to define a pedigree dog than to define a cross-breed. We now believe that we have a set of definitions which will stand up to scrutiny. It is important that we act— and I shall have the powers to do so— to ensure that new types of dogs can be added to the banned list.
I understand that there is only one tosa dog in the country, so we can take action now rather than 10 years on, when there would be debates about trying to eliminate a large number of dogs. Indeed, if we had taken the appropriate action with the American pit bull terriers in 1976, we should not be dealing with this problem today. I gather that at least three other breeds are being trained to fight and kill and we must ensure that they do not come to this country. As soon as we know and can define them, we can put them on the banned import list.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Having had the doubtful pleasure of being bitten by a rottweiler—

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the dog die?

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: No, the dog lived too.
There is a growing problem with guard dogs, of which rottweilers and dobermans are the well-known breeds. Although we talk about the savage injuries caused by the two dreadful breeds of fighting dogs, nearly all the injuries are caused by rottweilers and dobermans. The interbreeding of those dogs is a time bomb which is just about coming home. Many young people are now growing up fearful of big dogs. Unless we have a way to control the big breeds in public so that they are at least muzzled or controlled by their owners, a generation of young people will miss the great joy and pleasure of owning dogs which is experienced by many hon. Members.

Mr. Baker: The size of a dog does not necessarily have anything to do with its viciousness. Some large dogs are completely safe, such as the St. Bernard and the Irish wolfhound, which was once trained for hunting wolves but which has been bred over the centuries not to be a savage dog. I do not want to give the impression that a large dog is necessarily more dangerous and vicious than a small one. We had considered a definition of the size and weight of dogs, but it does not apply—one must examine the characteristics of a breed.

Mr. Hattersley: May I urge the Home Secretary to understand that he has been questioned about two different dimensions of the problem? The first is the specified breeds, and I believe that almost the entire House will support him in their banning and eventual extinction. The second dimension deals with attacks by dogs that are not the specified breeds. A dog's motives are hardly important— whether it was bred to fight is no consolation to the person who may be savagely and desperately attacked by a dog that was purchased for another purpose.
It is because of our concern to limit attacks by other dogs that we want to see a number of proposals to make the owners more responsible. The programme to make owners more responsible has at its heart a national dog register. There is widespread support for such a register. This is not an appropriate matter for party controversy — there is no ideology in the issue of a dog register. When the scheme comes before the House— as it will—will there be a free vote?

Mr. Baker: It is not for me to determine such matters, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman appreciates. I have made my views on dog registration known. I do not believe that it is the panacea that Opposition Members deeply believe it to be. However, I know that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to be helpful, and I appreciate that. I am grateful for his support of the proposals to deal with the dangerous breeds. As I said, I shall introduce wider measures to make it a criminal offence to have a dog dangerously out of control in a public place and measures to give court powers to be more specific in the control orders on dogs, which will extend to all breeds. I am anxious to put that package on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

Health Care of Prisoners

Mr. John Battle: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make new provision for the health care of prisoners in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.
The main purpose of the Bill is to transfer the function of the health care of prisoners from the prison medical service to the national health service.
The question of medical care in prisons is not new to the House. Statutory medical presence in prisons dates back to 1774 when the Health of Prisoners Act was passed empowering justices of the peace to intervene in the administration of prisons in order to ensure the maintenance of health standards within them. As a result of that Act, justices could order the scraping and whitewashing of walls and ensure the provision of sick rooms, ventilation and regular washing and cleaning facilities. In addition, they were allowed to appoint an experienced surgeon or an apothecary, paying them from the rates, whose duty was to report on the health of those in prison.
In the 19th century, the House frequently debated deaths in prisons. In July 1840, The Lancet launched an assault on the reliability of the official figures for deaths in prisons. It commented:
Health is impaired and life is shortened by imprisonment.
Since I was elected to the House in 1987, I have had to ask questions about seven suicides in Armley prison in my constituency. Six of those were committed by unconvicted youngsters held on remand. The issue is not confined to Armley prison by any means. With a national prison population of about 50,000 people, the United Kingdom has the largest number of prisoners per 100,000 of the population of any western European country. As a result of the Government's building expansion programme, the capacity will be increased to hold 80,000 prisoners.
In recent years, suicides in prisons have increased, especially among remand prisoners. Since 1987, the number of suicides has doubled each year. Last year, 51 prisoners died by their own hands and 12 have died in the first quarter of this year. There have been 13 "lack of care" verdicts returned on prison suicides by coroners' courts in the last four years.
In May 1989, the new suicide prevention guidelines were issued by the Home Office and were welcomed, but they need to be backed up by staffing and resources. Recently the British Medical Association focused on the prison medical service and described it as
Unable to provide the necessary care of prisoners in general and particularly those prisoners on remand.
In December 1989 Mr. Justice Pills, ruling on the suicide of Paul Worrell in Brixton prison in 1982, made it clear that the prison medical service has no duty to provide prisoners with the same standard of care as that provided by the national health service. The Home Office's scrutiny of the prison medical service published last October recommended closer alignment with the NHS, but encouraged the prison medical service to call upon clinical services from national health service authorities.
At present, three types of doctor are involved in the prison medical service: the full-time prison medical officer employed by the Home Office, part-time visiting general practitioners and visiting specialists. There are 110 prison medical officers who are backed up by 1,069 uniformed prison hospital officers, also employed in the dual function as Home Office prison staff. Of those, only 171—16 per cent.—have even basic nursing qualifications and, although their training was extended from 13 weeks to 24 weeks in 1983, the Prison Officers Association has described it as
little more than an extended first-aid course".
The 1989 report of the chief inspector of prisons for the very first time devoted a full chapter to medical services. It drew attention to a catalogue of practices which it described as
well below the accepted standard and must not be allowed to continue.
The report drew attention to diagnostic testing, X-rays not properly taken, badly maintained equipment, inability to read the X-ray films, failure to carry out routine blood and urine tests, prescription of out-of-date drugs, misprescription and even cases of jaundice and diabetes not being properly diagnosed and treated. The chief inspector's report also highlighted the shortage of prison hospital officers, who are particularly overstreteched at night time which is the crisis time for suicides.
The prison medical service is structurally accountable to the prison service, but, because there is not a separation of function and responsibility between disciplinary control and medical care in prisons, the result is a lack of trained staff and training opportunities, recruitment problems, lack of accountability and strained loyalties, all of which must affect the quality of health care.
I have received supportive and confidential letters from doctors who are aware of the difficulties caused by their accountability to the Home Office. My Bill would replace the facilities of the prison medical service with NHS provision, it would establish an independent medical council and ensure that free health care of an equal standard to that of the general public is available to prisoners as a basic right. My Bill is a common sense practical measure with widespread professional support within and without the prison service and in the probation and medical services. It is also supported by statutory and voluntary bodies such as the National Association of Probation Officers and Inquest. I hope that it will receive the wholehearted support of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Battle, Mr. Peter Archer, Mr. Chris Smith, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Frank Field, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mrs. Audrey Wise.

HEALTH CARE OF PRISONERS

Mr. John Battle accordingly presented a Bill to make new provision for the health care of prisoners in England and Wales; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June and to be printed. [Bill 167.]

Orders of the Day — New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Ordered,
That the New Roads and Street Works Bill [Lords], as amended, be considered in the following order: new Clauses relating to Part I; new Schedules relating to Part I; Amendments relating to Clauses 1 to 5, Schedule 1, Clause 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 24; new Clauses relating to Part II; new Schedules relating to Part II; Amendments relating to Clauses 25 to 43; new Clauses relating to Part III; new Schedules relating to Part III; Amendments relating to Clauses 44 to 46, Schedule 3, Clauses 47 to 59, Schedule 4, Clauses 60 to 98, Schedule 5, Clauses 99 to 102; new Clauses relating to Part IV; new Schedules relating to Part IV; Amendments relating to Clauses 103 to 118, Schedule 6, Clauses 119 to 157, Schedule 7, Clauses 158 to 161; Other new Clauses; Other new Schedules; Amendments relating to Clauses 162 to 164, Schedules 8 and 9, Clauses 165 to 167. — [Mr. Freeman.]

New Clause 2

ANNUAL REPORT ON CONCESSION AGREEMENTS AND TOLL ORDERS

'.— (1) The Secretary of State shall in respect of each calendar year lay before Parliament a report—

(a) stating the number of concession agreements entered into by him during that year,
(b) stating the number of new roads opened to public use during that year for which he is the highway authority and which at the time of their opening were subject to a concession,
(c) listing the toll orders, and orders varying or revoking toll orders, made or confirmed by him in that year, and
(d) containing such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders (whenever made) which are in force during that year or any part of it.

(2) The report shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.'.— [Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 27, 29, 30, Government new clause 9— Report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland—and Government amendments Nos. 74 to 76.

Mr. Freeman: We start with what I hope is, as far as possible, a note of consensus. We have had sufficient time since the completion of the Committee stage to consult as widely as possible with local authorities; utilities; those interested in the preservation of the countryside, such as the Council for the Protection of Rural England; and various cycling organisations. I hope that I have met most, if not all, of the legitimate concerns on which I promised the Committee to reflect.
I hope that the new clause and some of the others will not provoke much controversy. They may expose a

fundamental difference of opinion on a number of issues, but on the narrow issue of how best to improve the Bill I hope that there will be at least a measure of agreement.
The new clause and the related Government amendments affecting England, Wales and Scotland extend the scope of the annual report which is required by clause 1. It is an annual report to Parliament which must be made before 31 July of the following year. The Government welcome the procedure because it is open and represents solid, if modest, progress on the size of the road programme. Nevertheless, it is positive progress.
The annual report already has to include the number of concession agreements entered into and the number of new roads that were opened to public use when the Secretary of State was the highway authority and that were subject to a concession.
New clause 2 and the related amendments fulfil a commitment that I gave in Committee and add another requirement— that the annual report should list the toll orders, the changes, variations, revocations and extensions of toll orders that have been confirmed during the year; and other relevant information. It will catch not only special roads for which the Secretary of State for Transport is responsible but local highway authorities. It is therefore broad in nature and presents no particular problem because the Government would be the confirming authority for toll orders relating to "local" roads— those within the purview of local highway authorities.
The provision will also catch public tolls, where toll orders relate to public bridges and where changes have been made. It will cover not only the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Transport but parallel provisions for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
When the annual reports are presented to Parliament, it will be clear that tolling is not a substitute but an addition to public sector provision, including the transport supplementary grant. I welcome openness in Government and proper reporting to Parliament, which is appropriate in this case. The provision will not cover those tolls that are directly regulated by private Acts of Parliament, or Acts arising from the hybrid Bill procedure, because there is already full provision for their reporting and public scrutiny.

Ms. Joan Ruddock: May I echo what the Minister said about the consensus that exists on the Bill and the way in which we have been able to co-operate with the Minister and his Department during its proceedings to date? We are grateful to him for undertaking to consult people between Committee and Report, and we are aware that much of that consultation has been fruitful. Many of the issues that we sought to press upon the Minister in Committee have now been conceded by him; we shall see, as we go through the debates tonight, that the Opposition agree with much of the Bill.
However, new clause 2 does not seem to contain precisely the measures that we sought. Will the Minister hear me out and see whether he can enlighten us further? Two changes have been made: information on toll orders is added to the list, and a reference is made to the inclusion of
such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders".
Two of our concerns in Committee about clause 1(6) are outstanding. The Committee considered an


Opposition amendment which would have added three new topics to the contents list of the annual report; first, the number of competitions held and the number of bidders for each competition; secondly, whether the winners of a competition should be required to compensate the loser; thirdly, the number of occasions on which the Secretary of State had entered into joint agreements with bidders to undertake traffic and environmental studies. When we pressed the Minister on those points in Committee, he responded by giving an assurance that the issues listed would, where appropriate, be covered in the annual report.
The first issue that arises from the new clause is why, having decided to extend the list of items to be covered in the report, the Minister has not included any of the subjects considered by the Standing Committee. The second issue concerns the wording of new clause 2(d), which refers to information
with respect to the toll orders.
The topics covered in the amendment considered in Standing Committee did not relate to a toll order. Indeed, the events referred to may take place a considerable time before a toll order is made for the concession road in question.
As the Minister has produced a catch-all phrase in respect of toll orders only, and not in respect of the wider issues on concession agreements referred to in Committee, will he explain how new clause 2 meets his assurance in Committee about how he would meet our objections and suggestions— with which he seems to concur— that the topics to which I referred would properly come within the annual report?

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: There was a great deal of agreement in Committee, and I hope that we shall have a speedy conclusion tonight on many of the subjects to be discussed.
On the annual report, the Minister said that toll orders would be confirmed during the course of the year. I assume that he means that the date the Secretary of State first received notification of a toll order would be the date on which we decided to place it in an annual report. If not, what timing does the Minister foresee for the reporting of a toll order to the general public? Where do the general public come into the matter? Does it then follow that, after the decision, the general public would have a public inquiry and other inquiries, which would then be included in the annual report?

Mr. Brian Wilson: May I take this opportunity to deal specifically with new clause 9 and the issue that underlies it? It relates to part II and deals with the report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland. It illustrates the off-hand way in which the Bill has been railroaded through. The new clause is of considerable importance to specific communities in Scotland, yet we do not have the courtesy of the presence, on the Government Front Bench or in the House, of a single Scottish Office Minister.
Virtually nobody else in the House knows or cares about this issue. I care very much, because it is about paving legislation for the construction of a high-toll private enterprise road bridge between the mainland and the Isle of Skye. That is the ideological toehold that the Government are obtaining for private enterprise construction and the imposition of high-toll bridges and roads in Scotland. It is a crime, albeit a victimless crime.
The people who will pay the price, for at least the next 20 years, for a measure that will be railroaded through tonight are those who live on that island and beyond. At present, they are wholly dependent on the ferry for access to the mainland and, in future— if the Government get their way— they will be at the mercy of a company called Miller Construction, which is about to be given a licence to build a bridge and to charge what it likes for the next 20 years to recoup that investment.
It would be a terrible wrong on a small community if, in the last month of this Parliament, the Government were to sign and seal a contract that would condemn the people of Skye for 20 years to bridge tolls 10 times more expensive than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That is the immediate prospect under the Bill.
In the past 20 years, over 140 large and small bridges have been built in the highlands and islands from public funds without the imposition of tolls on those who use them. They include such substantial structures as Ballachulish bridge, Kylescu bridge and Dornoch bridge. The programme, which was initiated when the construction of the Ballachulish bridge in the late 1960s was agreed by a Labour Government, has been carried through since then on a consensual basis no matter which party was in power, on the basis of the shared belief that there was a public duty and social responsibility to improve communications within the highlands and islands of Scotland. It was always the understanding that, as it is the most ambitious of the projects, the Skye bridge would come at the end of that programme. It was always assumed that the Skye bridge would be an extension of the public highway network, but that is not now what is proposed.
Has the Minister the slightest clue what he is legislating for? Can he explain why, uniquely, those who visit Skye and points west of Skye, and those who cross to the mainland from them, should be penalised by tolls of between £4 and £5 per car per crossing— and that is just for starters? The answer to that question lies not in justice or any iota of concern for island communities, but in the hard face of ideology, in which the project is seen as the way of putting into play in Scotland the concept of high-toll private enterprise bridges.
Would the few hon. Members present tonight vote happily in favour of a measure that imposed such a dreadful burden of tolls on their communities for the next 20 years? If they would not have it done to their communities, why should they participate in allowing it to be done to the island of Skye? This part of the legislation is a disgrace. It condemns one community in Britain to a regime of tolls 10 times higher than those anywhere else in the United Kingdom.
The answer that will be given is that, at present, people are served by a ferry. However, around the coast of Britain, many communities were at some time served by ferries. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who I am pleased to see has just joined us, recently opened a new causeway at Dornie, which is not far from the place that we are talking about. In the past, one had to cross at Dornie by ferry, but a bridge was erected and then a causeway was built. However, people do not have to continue to pay tolls of the same price as the former ferry charge.
When the bridge was built at Ballachulish, we did not consider what the tolls were 10 or 15 years ago when the bridge replaced the ferry, so that the same charge could be


applied to the bridge as once applied to the ferry. We do not do that at Kylescu or any of the other places, not just in Scotland but in Britain as a whole, which were once served by ferries and are now to be served by bridges. However, that is the fate that is to be uniquely visited on the people of Skye because of the introduction of the private enterprise element.
For at least 20 years, those people will have to pay tolls of between £4 and £5 per car, instead of enjoying the bridge as an extension of the public highway. The bridge should be an aid to the development of communities, which are peripheral in every sense and need improved communications to foster their economic prospects.
The legislation paves the way for the high-toll private enterprise regime which has been visited on the isle of Skye and on those who use the route at present and will do so in future. It is a disgrace which the Government would not dare to impose on a large community: they pick the weak.

Mr. Freeman: I am used to the calmer proceedings in Committees dealing with English issues. I am not as used as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to a great deal of—

Mr. Wilson: Answer the questions.

Mr. Freeman: I shall address the points raised, but the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) expressed many intemperate views, and I shall deal with those issues first.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Scottish Office should have some responsibility for this matter. I do not necessarily agree with all that the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said, but he has made a valid point. New clause 9 is in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the strictures apply specifically to Scotland, not to England and Wales. A Scottish Minister should answer the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North. That is a common-sense and fair constitutional point.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister for Public Transport has risen to answer the debate, and he should be allowed to continue to so so.

Mr. Douglas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Your answer did not apply to the point of order that I was making and I ask you to reflect on what I am saying. New clause 9 is a Scottish clause and a Scottish Minister is present. Although the Minister for Public Transport may be able to reply to the general clauses, the specific issue in new clause 9 has nothing to do with the departmental interests of the Secretary of State for Transport. Surely a Scottish Minister should answer the questions on Scottish issues.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The lead new clause is new clause 2. It is certainly true that new clause 9 is grouped with it, but we should allow the Minister for Public Transport to answer the debate.

Mr. Freeman: Perhaps I can be helpful. Although, with the agreement of the House, I should like to address some

of the points raised by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will respond to points relating to the Skye bridge. I cannot speak on that issue and would not pretend to do so.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North said that the measure was being railroaded through. In my experience of Parliament, I cannot think of a Bill for which that remark would be more inappropriate than the one we are debating. I wish to put on record my strong feelings about that statement, which is not true. The hon. Gentleman should consult shadow Ministers on the subject.
In Committee, shadow Ministers made it plain that, if in government, they would not activate that part of the Bill to allow them to build toll roads. By implication, it was apparent that, if procedures had been started, they would be cancelled. They were perfectly consistent about that from the word go.
If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North objects in principle to the building of a particular toll bridge or toll road, he must choose an alternative, of which there are three. He could increase the generality of the road programme, which would mean greater pressure on public resources and could involve higher taxation. He could cancel, or recommend cancellation of, other projects in Scotland because the Scottish Office is responsible for that vote. He would have to state that, in his judgment, a publicly built bridge should be given a higher priority than some other schemes which he, or a shadow Minister, would have to identify. His third option would be to accept that the bridge will not be built as quickly as it otherwise would be.
I shall now deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). New clause 2 states the statutory minimum, but when we publish an annual report we shall go considerably further than is required as a minimum; otherwise, the report will look a little bare and uninteresting. I should say to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) that, although the information will be retrospective— it has to be— all hon. Members would want the public to take an interest in the document. We want it to be not merely a set of arid tables but an informative document. It would not be hundreds of pages long, but it would go beyond the statutory minimum.
The hon. Member for Deptford raised three points relating to the number of competitions held, whether there was any scheme to compensate the losers, and joint research and studies between the relevant Government Departments and those competing for the concessions. Those are all perfectly valid points. The number of competitions held will probably relate directly to the number of concessions let. I am less persuaded on that point than on the other two, which are perfectly valid.
Although the hon. Member for Deptford knows the Government's position on compensation for losers— we are not in favour of it— at this point we are not ruling it out as a possibility in the future as an arrangement between the contractors. If that were to happen, I would regard it as public interest and public guidance to the construction industry, and doubtless that would be referred to.
Joint research between the Department and contractors is one way to avert some of the risks and therefore of advancing the cause of the toll road being built, because contractors might wish to share in common information


— for example, on soil surveys and traffic densities. I would wish to see that reported, to the extent that it is of public interest and is significant.
I hope that I have dealt with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Deptford and by the hon. Member for Southport. I know that the latter will have many other comments to make about the information available to the public and to the protection of the public during our proceedings. However, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland may wish to answer the questions about the Skye bridge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I am glad to respond to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who I know feels very strongly indeed about this subject. He has written a strong article in the Glasgow Herald. In principle, he is against tolls and he has made that clear in the past. There is a great deal of support in Highland regional council for a bridge to Skye and for the Skye bridge project. The council voted overwhelmingly in favour of the project proceeding as a privately financed scheme.
I told the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North and many other people in Scotland that I would provide a free bridge if I were in a position to do so. I am not in that position and I do not believe that the Government will be in such a position for the foreseeable future. There is no prospect of that happening unless a major motorway project in the central belt of Scotland is cancelled. Frankly, we are not prepared to do that because of the needs of the lowlands of Scotland, where the bulk of the population lives.
As regards the Skye bridge and tolls, details of the bridge contract have yet to be finalised. As I said at Dornie — I am glad to repeat it today— tolls will be comparable with ferry fares. Obviously we shall keep in close touch with Highland regional council on the subject.
Environmental considerations have been taken fully into account, and we have bent over backwards to meet all the environmental concerns that have been suggested, and have had a large number of meetings on the subject.
I stress again that the bridge to Skye would bring with it enormous benefits for tourism, not only for Skye but onwards to the Western Isles. We have offered to cover the funding of the approach road— to the extent of £6 million — and of the trunk road from Kyle of Lochalsh to Uig, which are substantial contributions. Highland regional council rightly took that into account.
I believe that the islanders are overwhelmingly of the opinion that the bridge would raise their standard of living. The people whom I would describe as white settlers, who have come from elsewhere in Britain to live in Skye, may not take that view and may prefer no bridge, but the people who have lived on the island and have been directly concerned with the practicalities of life there are strongly in favour of a bridge. I have visited Skye almost every year for the past 20 years.
The bridge will bring substantial benefits to the local community. By using private finance, the community will be able to enjoy the advantages of a fixed link with the mainland much earlier than would otherwise be the case. A bridge might not be provided from public funding for 20 years or even longer without displacing other extremely worthwhile projects, which are already in the programme.
We expect to sign a concession agreement with the winning consortium in July or, at the latest, September. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North for giving me the opportunity to reply on that subject.

Mr. Douglas: That was an inadequate explanation of the Secretary of State's activities in relation to the new clause. One can argue that everything has an opportunity cost. The same arguments could have been applied to the building of the Beauly or the Dornoch firth bridges— neither of those has been subject to tolls—and it can be said that the only way to build the Skye bridge is if it is subject to tolls.
However, my argument is that we should be going the other way in Scotland. We should have a road-related tariff for ferries to the Western Isles and elsewhere. I argue forcibly for the social cost benefit of not having tolls on that bridge. Tolls will act as a restriction of economic and other activities. They would mean making a section of the population pay an additional charge, to which other sections are not subject. The Minister is making a poor argument at this stage. He says that the Secretary of State for Scotland will enter into an agreement for the commissioning of the private road bridge and will commit succeeding Governments. I do not know whether there will be a succeeding Labour Government, but let us assume that, for the sake of argument.

Ms. Ruddock: Of course there will.

Mr. Douglas: I am not necessarily opposed to that. I am willing to argue the case by way of illustration.
The Secretary of State will sign a contract with a private developer, and if any future Labour Government wanted to reverse that with a buy-out, the developer will be paid considerable compensation. There will be a clause in the agreement to compensate the private developer for the loss of tolls for 20 or 25 years. That should not be done at this stage in the life of a Parliament. The Secretary of State ought not to be allowed to enter into an agreement with a private developer and to commit a future Government to pay compensation for 20 or 25 years. They should desist and they should not enter into such an agreement.
Obviously, I am not negotiating for the Secretary of State, but it strikes me as extremely silly of him to do that; he should leave the contract more open. If a future Government wanted to abolish the toll, they should not find themselves in the onerous position of having to compensate the private developer because the Secretary of State for Scotland in a Tory Government had wanted to rush through a provision which is desirable— no one is disputing that fact— but which is contrary to what has been done with other road bridges in the highlands and islands.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) mentioned a considerable number of bridges, none of which has been subject to tolls. We await the opening of the Dornoch bridge in a few weeks' time. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will go up there and say how wonderful it is and how it will reduce journey times from Inverness to Thurso. However, there are no tolls on that bridge—it is a wonderful piece of economic development. Why should the bridge to Skye have tolls imposed on it when that bridge does not have tolls? There is no real logical or economic argument in terms of the


development of the highlands and islands and the Western Isles. Although it is useful for the Under-Secretary to be here, it shows up the paucity of his arguments.

Mr. Gordon McMaster: The Minister for Public Transport said that essentially three options were available for the funding of bridges. However, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has told us that there are two options for the people of Skye: a toll bridge or no bridge at all. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State a question that the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), could not answer in Committee. Will such private funding supplement or be a substitute for public funding of roads? Will it make any difference to the public expenditure programmes available to local authorities in Scotland?

Mr. Wilson: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are not in Committee. He has spoken once, and he would need the leave of the House to speak a second time.

6 pm

Mr. Wilson: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to return briefly to my argument, as the Minister did not arrive until I was some way into my speech. Without rehearsing the arguments again, I would like to pick him up on a couple of points. We both know the arguments very well, and I want to get rid of a couple of red herrings that he introduced.
First, the Minister said that the great majority of people wanted a bridge. There is no disagreement about that; but an even greater majority do not want a bridge with a toll of £4 or £5 a car every time they cross it. That point was made in a petition signed by 7,000 people, which the Minister chooses to disregard, along with other evidence.
Highland regional council is constantly called in aid. It was faced not with a choice, but with a dilemma. It had not three but two options— take it or leave it. It had to accept a high-toll bridge or, the Government threatened, there would be no bridge at all for at least 20 years. The crux of the matter is not the opinion of Highland regional council or the public, because they are at one. What they want, overwhelmingly, is a bridge without tolls.
I cannot allow the Minister to get away with the divisive argument about "white settlers". That is a term that I do not like or use. A small minority of people do not want a bridge, some have lived in Skye all their lives and some have not. Who gives a tuppenny toss about that? It is a divisive argument, which I am not prepared to get into. The majority want a bridge, and— whether they want a bridge or not— if there is to be one everyone wants it to be toll-free. That is the one option that the Government are not prepared to offer.
The community is being blackmailed: if it does not accept a bridge on that basis, it cannot have a bridge at all. That has not been said to any other community in Scotland. I do not blame the Minister, because I do not think that he believes in this proposal any more than I do. He is the stalking horse for nastier forces in the Scottish Office, on this and many other matters. He did not invent the idea of making the Skye bridge a toll bridge. He will not rub his hands with ideological satisfaction when Miller

Construction, which is one of the largest contributors to Tory party funds in Scotland, receives the contract to build the bridge. He is not the architect of this project, but he should not soil his hands with it, especially in view of his past family connections with Skye.
People want a bridge, but not a high-toll bridge. They have been put in this dilemma because, unlike every other community that has been served by a bridge, they have not been given the option of a bridge as an extension of the public highway system.
If a Minister of equivalent status had gone around the highlands 20 years ago— such madness was not abroad then— he could have said to people in Ballachulish, west Sutherland and the east highlands who were crying out for bridges, "We know that it is a splendid idea, and we support the idea of building a bridge here, but the Government have no money. If you want a bridge, the only way is to pay through the nose for the next 20 years to some construction company." Fortunately, that degree of malevolence was not in the public spirit of the times, but it is now. That is why, uniquely, the people of Skye are being given Hobson's choice.
I ask the Minister not to carry out this proposal in advance of the general election. I say to him, "Don't tie the people of Skye and the Western Isles into this terrible imposition for the next 20 years without the moral or political authority or mandate to do so."
I remind the Minister that, unlike most of our time in political activism, the present climate means that we could travel the highlands and islands of Scotland from Muckle Flugga to Machrihanish and find many unpleasant impediments in our way, but we would not find a Tory Member of Parliament. Throughout the highlands and islands, the Tory party has shed its traditional support and has turned people against it by such nonsense, and by a lack of social concern for fragile communities. At one time, people were prepared to place some trust in one-world Tories— I am sorry, I mean one-nation Tories; "one-world Tories" would be a bit imaginative. The grandees once represented those areas in the Tory interest, but they no longer exist. People do not trust the Tory party because it continues to impose such experiments on fragile communities.
I urge the Minister— if he has any influence in the Scottish Office— to wait until after the general election. If by any mischance we are then still lumbered with a Tory Government, my arguments would fall. To tie up a community for 20 years in the dying days of a Parliament with no political mandate would, however, be scandalous beyond belief. The Minister would be held personally responsible for a very long time to come.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Does the hon. Gentleman seek the leave of the House to speak again?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: All the hon. Members who have spoken have raised a number of points, to which I want to reply. First, the principle of the privately financed initiative is to ensure that more schemes can be constructed than would otherwise be possible. In reply to the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South, (Mr. McMaster), let me say that the purpose is to make public funds go as far as possible. It may be argued that the Skye bridge should be publicly funded, but it would not


then be additional. The Government have made it clear that there will be no scheme-by-scheme reduction in the public programme.
If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) is prepared to cancel a motorway project in central Scotland to provide a toll-free Skye bridge, it would be useful for the House to know which programme he would cancel. I do not believe that that would be acceptable.
I stress again that Highland regional council came out very strongly in favour of the bridge. Its press release, issued on 19 November 1990, said:
Highland regional council convenor, Councillor Duncan McPherson, … warmly welcomed the progress being made on the … project and said he was sure the large majority of people of Skye would be delighted … that it should be ready by 1994.
Councillor McPherson is also vice-president of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He said:
I am encouraged by the initial indication from the tender process that our expectations will be fulfilled for the people of Skye. From the displays, it is obvious the consortia have gone to a great deal of care and effort to provide exciting designs that are worthy of this setting.
It is one of the most beautiful in the world. He ended by saying:
My Council wholeheartedly support the Skye bridge project.
The hon. Member for Cunninghame, North was concerned about the level of tolls. That point was put to me when I went to the opening of Dornie. We shall keep it in mind, but I can tell the House that the tolls will be broadly comparable with ferry fares.

Mr. Douglas: The Under-Secretary knows that the contract for the bridge will reflect the toll charges.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No.

Mr. Douglas: It would be an unusual contract if it did not. Is the Under-Secretary telling us that he will place a contract with Miller Construction that it will take without any idea of the charges that will have to be borne? If the charges are light, the payback period will be longer. The design has been accepted, so will he give us some idea of the tolls that are likely to be charged? What period of payback does he have in mind?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The next planning stage will be for Highland regional council to endorse the level and duration of tolls and the toll regime before we go ahead. Final details have not been worked out, but I stand by the general commitment that I have given that the tolls must be broadly comparable to ferry fares.
May I conclude with a point that is relevant to residents of the area? A study is being undertaken of whether a case can be made for a pedestrian ferry. We are taking that seriously in co-operation with Highland regional council as it is important for the islanders of Skye. I think that I have answered all the points that have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS

'. In section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 (environmental assessment of certain highway projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
(2A) Any project for the construction or improvement of a special road which falls within Annex II to the Directive shall be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following:

New Clause

POLICY COMPLIANCE

'() (1) Before entering into a concession agreement a highway authority shall satisfy itself in accordance with this section that the special road provided for in the agreement is in accordance with national, regional and local environmental land use and transport policies.

(2) The requirements of subsection (1) above shall be satisfied if—

(a) in any case where the route of the special road has been specified by the authority, the authority has published a statement indicating how the road complies with the relevant policies;
(b) in any case where the need which the road is intended to meet has been identified by the authority, but the route has not been so identified by it—

(i) the authority has published a statement indicating how the meeting of that transport need through the construction of a road complies with the relevant policies, and
(ii) the authority has required the concessionaire to publish a statement indicating how his design for the road meets the need identified in the most effective way, and he has published such a statement;
or

(c) in any case where the road does not form part of the highway authority's plans or programme, it has required the concessionaire to publish a statement—

(i) indicating the transport need which the road is intended to meet;
(ii) explaining how the meeting of that need complies with the relevant policies; and
(iii) indicating how his design for the road meets the need identified in the most effective way, and he has published such a statement.'.

New Clause 4

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS (No. 2)

'In section 105A of the Highways Act 1980 (environmental assessment of certain highways projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
(2A) Any project for the construction of or improvement of a special road which falls within Annex II of the Directive or is likely to have a significant effect on the environment shall


be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".'.

New clause 5—Environmental impact assessment—
'Before entering into a concession agreement, a highway authority shall carry out and publish an environmental impact assessment of the proposed road which shall include the local effects as listed in the Manual of Environmental Assessment and in addition the following objectives—

(a) an assessment of land use changes which would occur if the proposed road is built;
(b) an environmental impact assessment of road construction and maintenance;
(c) an assessment of the existing means of alternative transport available to persons likely to undertake journeys for which the road is proposed;
(d) an assessment of the transport need which the road is designed to meet, and
(e) an assessment of the environmental, social and economic effect of providing alternative modes of transport for persons likely to undertake journeys if the proposed road is built.'.

New clause 6—Duty of the Secretary of State regarding special roads, etc.—

'For subsection 16(8) of the Highways Act 1980 there is substituted—
Before making or confirming a scheme under this section, the Secretary of State shall give due consideration to—

(a) the requirements of local and national planning including the requirements of agriculture, and of
(b) in the case of a special road subject to a concession agreement under Part I of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, the environmental impact assessment carried out and published by the highway authority as required under that Act.".'.

Amendment No. 37, in page 2, line 15, clause 1, at end insert—
'(5A) It shall be the duty of the concessionaire in discharging any of its functions under this Act to so exercise its powers as to have regard to the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological and physiographic features of special interest and the protection of sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historical or archaeological interest.'.

Government new clause 10—Essential assessment of projects involving special roads in Scotland.

Mr. Freeman: New clause 3 provides the requirement for environmental assessments on roads.
Since the Committee stage, I have had a chance to talk to the Council for the Protection of Rural England. I may not be able to satisfy it on several issues that it raised, but on one point I can do so and it is reflected in the new clause, which requires that every special toll road shall be subject to an environmental statement. European Community directive 85/337 makes provision for environmental assessments for all roads in annexe I, which are mainly motorways, and there is some leeway on roads in annexe II.
The new clause provides that all toll roads will be subject to environmental statements. Under the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 an environmental assessment must be made of local authority toll roads. To the extent that there is a problem, it is more in perception than in reality. The new clause makes it clear that there must be an environmental statement for all toll roads.

Ms. Joan Walley: Fundamental opposition has been expressed to the Bill's provisions, such as those affecting the toll road to Skye.

Leaving aside those disagreements, we must consider the substance of the Bill as we can do little to change its main provisions.
The Minister has not been able to meet all our concerns, but we are grateful that he has met many of them. We have made much ground since we began debating environmental assessments in Committee. New clause 3 is a considerable advance, but it does not meet all our concerns. None the less, we welcome it as, for the first time, it provides an explicit requirement for environmental assessments.
Existing procedures fail to tackle the fundamental need for environmental protection. The new clause ensures that is a private road falls under annexe II of the EC directive on projects involving special roads, an environmental assessment will no longer be discretionary but will be made compulsory. That is welcome as far as it goes, but we want the Minister to give an assurance that meets the provisions of new clause 4. Some private roads will still fall outside the directive's annexes, but all private and public roads should be subject to environmental assessment. We agree with the views of the Council for the Protection of Rural England that certain road improvements that have significant environmental impact could be exempt.
6.15 pm
There is tremendous resistance to environmental assessment, possibly from within the Department of Transport, with which a Labour Government would deal within a few days of taking office. There is some reluctance to believe that environmental assessment is good in its own right. It has been stated that—perhaps the Minister is aware of this—an environmental assessment may attract the objections of conservationists. We believe that, throughout the country, structure plans have been accompanied by honest and open debate. It is essential that any potential conflicts are identified and addressed in the planning stages rather than when it is too late. The concessionaire would be fully aware of the opportunities and constraints of any proposal for a toll road.
Full environmental assessment of new road schemes should take into account the need for a new road. Existing procedures do not provide an opportunity to question whether a road is necessary, which is considered when it is too late to do anything about it. Full environmental assessment of new roads should take into account their associated development effects and public accountability in the decision-making process.
It is important to recognise what has happened in the past few years, because we do not want a repeat of the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for the Environment, in which he described the M40 as a "corridor for growth", thereby back-tracking on firm promises given in 1984.
In a press release, Andrew Purkis, national director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, said that firm promises made in 1984 that the planning system would resist development pressure arising from construction of the M40 have been turned on their head. We want to ensure that the need for a road is taken into account and that the environmental assessment is made at an early stage.
We do not want roads to slip through the net of environmental protection, which is why we urge, at this late hour, the need for a fail-safe against the criteria set out in the departmental standard. We want a firm undertaking


from the Minister that the Government will extend their commitments to environmental assessment to cover all private roads. We should like an early reform of the environmental assessment procedures for all public and private road schemes.
The Government have already taken powers in the Planning and Compensation Bill, which has recently been considered in the House, that enable them to make regulations applying environmental assessments more rigorously to road proposals. If that Bill can reflect such concerns, why cannot the Secretary of State for Transport take them on board?
I put it to the Minister, who has been very reasonable throughout our discussions, that the Department of Transport is lagging behind other Government Departments in its commitment to environmental protection. I hope that we shall receive from him an assurance that he will fully review the whole issue of environmental assessment in respect of all roads. That would take us a little way along the route that we want to take.
It is clear that, at present, environmental assessment is made available too late to ensure that environmental matters are material considerations in the selection of a private road scheme. The whole procedure is flawed. The current departmental standard should be reviewed. We should like from the Minister an assurance on that point also.
One of our reasons for tabling the other new clauses in this group is to provide that, at an early stage in the planning of a concession road, steps will be taken to make sure that the road complies with relevant national, regional and local policies. In new clause 1 we are unashamedly pursuing a theme that was raised during earlier stages of the Bill.
The new clause reflects our debates in Committee. At that stage, the Minister referred several times to the proposed concession roads in the west midlands—the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road. The new clause and a number of other Opposition amendments are designed, in part, to reflect concern expressed by local authorities in that part of the country. In Committee, we considered a new clause that would have required a highway authority, before inviting tenders from the private sector, to satisfy itself that the concession road proposal was consistent with relevant policies. That new clause was withdrawn following fairly lengthy debate, and the revised version takes account of that debate.
The Minister, in support of his case for rejecting the new clause at that stage, outlined what he saw as being the six key steps in the approval of a concession road. I remember this vividly. The first step was the selection of the route. The Minister made it clear that there were two ways in which a route could be selected—by the highway authority or by the prospective concessionaire. He said:
My argument, in brief, is that environmental considerations start from the word go.
We absolutely agree. He continued:
Where there is no preferred route and some of the groundwork has not been done any sensible contractor will take into account the likely environmental impact."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 March 1991; c. 13.]
Step two was a competition for the building of a road along the preferred route or within a broadly defined corridor. Step three was the designation of the winner of the competition, and the drafting and signing of a concession agreement between the winner and the highway

authority. Step four was the publication of the draft orders for the special road, including detailed designs. Step five was the public inquiry to consider the environmental impact of the proposed road. Step six was the announcement of the decision following the public inquiry.
In response to debates on the environmental impact of concession roads and their effects on local planning policies, the Minister emphasised the importance of the public inquiry. However, it is clear from the timetable, as outlined, that important decisions will have to have been taken by the time the inquiry is held. A decision in principle that the road is necessary will have been taken by the highway authority—most probably the Secretary of State—and the selection between a number of means of providing the road may well have been made. This point has been brought to my attention by the local authorities and has been highlighted in correspondence between the Department of Transport and the metropolitan districts in the west midlands.
The Secretary to the west midlands planning and transportation sub-committee wrote to the Department in March, expressing serious reservations about plans for the development of the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road, to be financed under the provisions of the Bill and to be operated as toll roads. The Department's response attempted to reassure the authorities that the wider economic, traffic and environmental effects of any tender submissions would all be taken into account in deciding the winner.
I appreciate the fact that this is somewhat confusing. The Minister has been arguing that the appropriate stage for detailed environmental scrutiny of toll road proposals is the public inquiry, yet he has acknowledged that the decision in principle to build a road is taken at a much earlier stage and that environmental considerations start from the word go. Developers submitting proposals to the Department are expected to have taken environmental factors into account, and a range of environmental and economic considerations will be taken into account in deciding who the prospective concessionaire should be.
However, the Bill as drafted is silent on all those points. It was precisely to fill that gap that we tabled the new clause. It reflects the various ways in which concession road proposals could be developed. In essence, it would do no more than write into the Bill the assurances that the Minister has already given. The importance of environmental considerations and of securing the implementation of transport and land use policy make it essential that those assurances are embodied in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will announce that further consideration will be given to those issues.
Amendment No. 37, standing in my name and in the names of several of my hon. Friends, concerns environmental duty. The Bill, as amended in Committee, provides no power to ensure that the private sector will consider the wider consequences of its activities. For that reason, we are suggesting the inclusion of a general environmental duty. It is necessary to have such a provision so that private road developers may be put in the same position as public authorities in respect of the general responsibility to protect the environment affected by their activities.
Currently, public authorities are very clearly required, in several Acts of Parliaments, to consider the environmental effects of their actions. The duty applying


to all public authorities is contained in section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968. If public authorities have such a statutory duty, can the Minister assure us there will be a similar duty in relation to the financing arrangements for private toll roads? As private companies become increasingly involved in activities previously the domain solely of public authorities, it is vital that the same level of responsibility and concern for the environment should apply.
Let us consider how the Environmental Protection Act 1990 deals with some of these issues. There may not be a direct relationship, but that Act certainly contains a provision to the effect that British Rail is responsible for embankment litter. We must ensure that private companies have the same environmental protection responsibilities and duties. As we pointed out in Committee, it is clear that there are good precedents for this. The Electricity Act 1957, in a section entitled "Preservation of amenity"—which requires the generating board and the area boards to take into account the effects of their proposals on countryside, wildlife and historical features—provides such a precedent. The same concern has arisen in respect of the electricity industry and the coal industry. We simply wish to ensure that, with regard to environmental duties, the Bill falls into line with other pieces of legislation.
We have heard from the Government a great deal about the importance that they attach to environmental protection. It seems to us that they could go further down this road. They have paid lip service to the principle but are not prepared to commit themselves fully in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances on these important issues.

Mr. Fearn: I want to make it clear from the outset that my party is not against toll roads in principle. However, we are concerned about the impact on the environment if parts I and II of the Bill are enacted. It is obvious from the amendments that have been tabled that many people share that concern for the environment. New clauses 5 and 6 are not too dissimilar from amendments debated in Standing Committee. It is important that the issue should be raised again today.
I would have given my full support to new clause 1 and withdrawn my amendments if I had believed that it was easy to establish what national, regional and local environmental land use and transport policies really are and, where they exist, that they were formulated with environmental impact as a major concern. I do not believe that that is the case. Perhaps a few local authorities have good land use and transport policies, but many have not, as we are all aware. As for national strategies and policies, where are they and what are they?
6.30 pm
As far as I am concerned, the national transport policy consists of building new roads at the expense of other transport systems. In such an atmosphere, any special road scheme is likely to fit in with national policy. Local people and the public at large have a right to know the immediate and future consequences for the environment of privately-funded roads.
An article in The Guardian last Monday week referred to a claim by Friends of the Earth that 17 new towns and villages may be built if a proposed privately funded

motorway along the east coast of England goes ahead. The development potential associated with private toll roads causes alarm.
The Minister brushed that concern aside in Standing Committee by stating:
Any development adjacent to the road…is subject…to normal planning laws."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 14 March 1991; c. 26.]
I am afraid that that comment does not fill me with confidence. I am sure that hon. Members can identify planning decisions that fly in the face of the wishes of local people or decisions that have had damaging effects on the environment. The possible changes in land use and the associated effects cause alarm. Local planning authorities should be involved in the overall decision making with regard to road construction. Future patterns of land use should be identified and publicised at an early date to allow for differing views to be aired.
There was much debate in Committee about when and at what stage an environmental assessment should be conducted and about what that assessment would entail. Most of the time, the Minister appeared to think that the public inquiry process was the right forum, although he later appeared to say that environmental considerations would be taken into account from the very beginning. That confusion is still prevalent. If it is to be left to the public inquiry stage, that will be far too late, as we are led to believe that the public inquiry is the fifth stage in a six-stage process. I do not share the Minister's faith in the public inquiry system.
There is no guarantee that, in an inquiry, the environmental considerations will be given the weight that is demanded in today's climate. Once again, we are all aware of cases in which the public inquiry system has proved to be a poor method of protecting environmentally sensitive areas and in which the scope of environmental considerations was very limited. It is also theoretically possible for a road to be built without a public inquiry, and the Secretary of State has the power to overrule the decision of any such inquiry.
In Committee, the Minister made many well-intentioned statements on the Government's behalf and on behalf of the unknown concessionaire. I am afraid that good intentions with regard to the environment are not sufficient. Clear objectives must be written into the Bill.
Previously, when public money has been involved, environmental considerations have taken second place to financial considerations. The fact that the Government face one, and possibly three, prosecutions by the European Community is an indictment of their commitment to protect the environment. Why should we be reassured when private money is involved, particularly when we are dealing with a Government whose underlying philosophy is that all problems can be resolved with private profit and through the marketplace? What chance is there of such a Government turning away private investment if to do so would mean that the road would have to be funded from the public purse?
I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken some of the environmental concerns on board in new clause 3. Although I will support new clause 4, which is wider in scope and offers more guarantees, we must still go further. The Minister was also fond of saying in Committee that private roads should not be treated any differently from public roads. At the time the Minister misinterpreted my


support of his view. It would be acceptable if the environmental assessment for public roads was as far-reaching as today's amendments.
I press the Government for a commitment that there will be an early reform of the environmental assessment procedure for all roads. Until that reform has been carried out, privately funded roads should be treated differently because they are different. They start from a completely different premise. Privately funded roads will be driven by a profit motive. The concessionaire's first responsibility will be to shareholders and not to the public.
Despite some protests to the contrary, I am convinced that private toll roads will be development-led. I do not envisage a private enterprise coming forward on the basis of profit from tolls alone. The tolls would have to be high, and the risks would be too great for the concessionaire. I am also concerned that a Bill of this type will create a culture of road building. It will allow greater emphasis to be placed on roads—even more than there is now—at the expense of other forms of transport and at the expense of the environment.
Liberal Democrats are committed to finding ways of reducing the need to build more roads. Before any road is built, and particularly before a privately funded road is built with its potential for development, a thorough assessment of providing alternative means of transport should be carried out, and wherever feasible a highway authority should consider ways to fund alternatives including attracting private finance.
There are many possible alternatives, including light rail schemes, reopening existing unused railway lines and, in some cases, opening new ones. Other means may include finding ways to improve existing modes and if necessary providing a missing link to meet the requirements of an integrated travel system.
I stress the importance of ensuring that, before this part of the Bill comes into force, we build in a safeguard to protect the environment from unnecessary and unwanted destruction. The only way to do that is to write into the Bill a requirement to carry out an environmental impact assessment incorporating the objectives that I have outlined. The assessment should be carried out at the earliest possible moment before the wheels are set in perpetual motion. I listened carefully to the Minister as he moved new clause 3, but he did not answer the points that I have just made.

Mr. Freeman: I must tell the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) that my advice is that every toll road will be covered as a result of the amendments. The hon. Lady described a hypothetical situation in which what she described as a private toll road might not be covered. If she reflects on that and takes further advice, I hope that she will accept my assurance that the intention is that all toll roads, whether initiated, authorised or sponsored by the Secretary of State or by a local highway authority, will be covered. That is the intention and I have taken the best possible advice on that subject.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North referred to environmental assessments. The Government regard the environmental assessment process as extremely important and we share that view with the Opposition and with the CPRE.
On the proposed high-speed rail link between the tunnel and London, I have read some of the environmental

assessment work that has been done so far. It is not yet published, but I hope that it will be published shortly. It is a monumental effort in respect of the eastern section—a process that has been going on for six or nine months. When a preferred route is published, there will be perhaps six to 12 months of further work, before the planning permission process can even commence, for the environmental assessment of the western part of the route. We take the matter seriously. British Rail is taking it seriously. It is extremely important, and that is why I am glad to have brought forward the new clause.

Ms. Ruddock: The Minister tempts me by his references to the Government's deep concern about environmental assessments. I wonder whether he thinks that relevant to that concern and the new clause is the prosecution on the M3 extension going through Twyford Down, the possible prosecution of the Government by the European Community over the Hackney-M11 link, and the possible prosecution for driving a road through Oxleas wood.

Mr. Freeman: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would not allow me to be tempted to go down that route. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) knows what we are discussing and my specific responsibilities. There will be many opportunities to discuss the specifics. In a moment, I might mention the M40 and the east coast motorway, which have been referred to.
The argument of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North was that we must establish need first. The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) said on a quite separate but related point that we must have an environmental assessment at the outset. The two points are related, but not directly.
On need, I cannot commend the encapsulation of that thought in a legislative amendment to a Bill as the right way to proceed. First, it should be fairly apparent that if there is a process by which either the Secretary of State as the road authority or the local authority is overseeing a toll road procedure, that authority, whether central Government or local government, will have had to be satisfied that there was a need in the first place. That is a practical point. It cannot be escaped; it is an essential part of the process. Secondly, I regard the process as iterative. I do not regard it as being logically compartmentalised into need or environmental assessment stages being exclusively completed at a certain procedural point before a toll road is completed.
The lack of need or the greater need for a road, or the precise environmental impact, will become clearer as the process proceeds. We know that it is quite a long process for the Birmingham relief road. I was criticised because of what was regarded as an excessive delay in the construction of the Birmingham northern relief road, in part because of the very detailed procedures that have to be gone through. That is why the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North and I part company about incorporating an amendment to require a specific statutory procedure for establishing need. It will happen anyway. It is difficult to set down in precise legal terminology what needs to be done, because it would be a fairly exhaustive list of references.

Ms. Walley: I can understand the Minister's point about difficulties and trying to introduce an amendment at this stage. However, if he gives the matter the importance


that we give it, will he assure us that he will fully review the departmental standard in relation to environmental assessment? If he would give that commitment, we could start to examine the way in which decisions are made, their timing and their relation to the need for road planning. That would take us some further way towards greater environmental protection.

Mr. Freeman: I am happy to give that assurance. I alluded to it in Committee, but, for the sake of clarity, I repeat that assurance. We expect advice before the end of the year on the modalities—for example, how we quantify some of the consequences of road building, whether toll roads or public roads, on the environment. That matter is extremely important. It is equally important for rail schemes. I give that assurance to the hon. Lady and, through her, to other hon. Members and the Council for the Protection of Rural England, of which, as the hon. Lady knows, I am a member. I have as much interest as she has. I fully expect to receive advice before the end of the year. We shall consult on the conclusions before any changes are introduced.
6.45 pm
The hon. Lady talked about the M40. Whether it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State or my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic who talked about a corridor for growth, I hope that the hon. Lady is not taking that comment out of context. It is an important corridor between the west midlands and London. That is the sense in which the comment was made. The hon. Member for Southport mentioned the east coast motorway. That is not a Department of Transport scheme. It is not promoted by us; it is promoted by a group of local authorities and private sector contractors. It has a long way to go before it reaches serious consideration by the Department.
I do not believe that the toll roads that I have seen or can conceive of as viable or acceptable will be developer-led. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's view that that evil will come about. If there is to be any development, it must come about through the normal planning procedure. No provision in the Bill gives any right of compulsory purchase or any short-cuts through the planning procedures for the construction of a toll road.

Ms. Walley: As the Minister has given an assurance that he will consult with the Council for the Protection of Rural England on environmental assessments in relation to all roads, public and private, will he give the same undertaking on the extent to which new roads allow more development to happen? I quoted the director of the Council for the Protection of Rural England. The Minister would best be advised by that body on the relationship of the extent to which developments arise out of new road building.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady has had a concession from me, and she seeks to extend it even further. Let us be quite clear about what I said. I said that advice from the standing advisory committee on how environmental assessments are made and how we quantify the impact on the environment is expected before the end of the year. That is the subject on which we shall consult. I cannot give

wider assurances about how the procedure is carried out. I am aware of the views of the CPRE, but that is not the subject of the Bill or what I am seeking to address.
The hon. Lady asked me for an assurance about the duty to take care of the environment—a conservation duty—and whether it would indirectly be placed upon concessionaires. I can give her that assurance. Highway authorities, whether the Secretary of State for Transport, local authorities or their opposite numbers in Scotland, are public bodies and are bound by the legislation. Therefore, by definition, they have control over the activities of concessionaires.
The hon. Member for Southport spoke about the environmental assessment procedure occurring at a very early stage prior to the signing of a concession agreement, which, as he knows, is part of the procedure before the public inquiry so that the public inquiry has something specific to consider. The implication of his suggestion is that one must go public on the various proposals of the competitors. If there are three, each must be subject to an environmental assessment so that there is a full public debate. That goes a little further than what happens with a public road scheme, for which there is normally a helpful leaflet, an exhibition and a public consultation procedure on the options—A, B, or C—before draft road orders are drawn up for a preferred route upon which the Secretary of State for Transport, if it is a trunk road, will decide.
I understand the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Southport—and it is probably shared by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North—that there is no obvious public participation in the social and, especially, the environmental impact of the alternatives before the selection of a winner, or potential concessionaire, who then makes public his proposal. Then an assessment or statement has to be completed; then a public inquiry.
I understand that argument, but I cannot give the hon. Gentleman satisfaction. The point troubles me, but I cannot see a solution, for three reasons. First, there would be a greater blight if, for example, the three final competitors had to publish the details of their routes so that an environmental assessment could take place, and that is leaving aside the question whether the private sector companies would be prepared to disclose their propositions at an early stage.
Secondly, I do not honestly believe that a specific proposal could be tested unless it was enshrined in a concession agreement. A specific route needs to be analysed in terms of its environmental impact, but if an assessment were sought at a much earlier stage the ideas would be far too vague and woolly.
Thirdly, environmental assessment is part of the whole process of bringing a toll road proposal to a conclusion. Proper understanding of the environmental impact of a road is important for the private contractor right from the word go. He must talk to the local authorities, the statutory bodies and the lobby groups in order to understand some of the issues. If he does not, he will not be successful.

Mr. Fearn: Does not the Minister agree that, behind any successful concessionaire, there would have to be something which he said I described as an evil—although I am not sure whether I used that word? There could be a hidden agenda to favour development-led schemes.

Mr. Freeman: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance in respect of that assertion, but the propositions that I have seen which, speaking on behalf of the Government, I believe are likely to be acceptable and viable are not developer-led. If such a proposition were to be advanced—I have seen this with some putative rail schemes—I do not believe that it would commend itself either to the local authorities, which in the case of a major national scheme have the power to force a public inquiry, or to local opinion.
The hon. Gentleman is asking the impossible. I cannot give him an assurance that no scheme would be motivated by such factors, but it is neither our policy nor our intention that such roads should be born of a desire to capitalise on developer gain.

Mr. Fearn: The Minister referred to schemes that he had already seen. Does that mean that there are schemes for toll roads already before us?

Mr. Freeman: No, I was referring to schemes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already announced. I hope that I have answered all the questions asked during the debate.

Ms. Walley: rose—

Mr. Freeman: Clearly, I have not.

Ms. Walley: Briefly, and for the sake of clarity on the issue of the environmental duty, I should like to check with the Minister whether I heard him correctly. Was he saying that private companies, by virtue of taking a licence from the highway authority, would have the same duties as public authorities in connection with the prescription of section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968?

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Lady knows that that was not what I said. Because public sector bodies are bound by the legislation, they will ensure that those to whom they grant a concession or licence will also take care of their environmental duties. I know that that may not be acceptable to the hon. Lady, but my argument. on amendment No. 37 was that I honestly believed the proposal to be unnecessary. The hon. Lady may believe in writing into law that which is unnecessary, but as a Conservative I do not.
The legislation on the duty of conservation is laudable, and general in nature. The procedures already in the Bill are sufficient to ensure that, right from the conception of an idea through the whole process until the final confirming orders, an environmental conservation duty will be uppermost in the minds of the promoters of roads. I hope that the hon. Lady does not believe that, simply because toll roads are involved, the private sector promoters will have a lesser duty and interest in minimising and mitigating the environmental impact than would be the case if a public road were involved.

Ms. Walley: The Minister says that nothing should be written into the Bill, and that the duties will be taken up by any respectable private company. Will he consider giving advice and guidance to private companies on carrying out that which for local authorities and other public bodies is a duty, but which they will be expected to undertake voluntarily?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that we are not in Committee but on Report. We are making very slow progress.

Mr. Freeman: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall try to ensure that we make progress as fast as we can. The answer to the hon. Lady's question is that the amendment concerning concession agreements, which I hope we shall soon reach, will provide a solution to her problem.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

CONCESSION STATEMENT

'.—(1) Before making a toll order a highway authority shall publish a concession statement.

(2) The concession statement shall contain details of any provisions in the concession agreement for the special road concerned in relation to—

(a) the exercise of highway functions by the concessionaire;
(b) the design, construction and maintenance standards of the road;
(c)—the policing of the road and the provision of other emergency services;
(d) the arrangements for monitoring the performance of the concessionaire in the management of the road;
(e) the arrangements for winter maintenance and other emergency clearance operations on the road and the standards to be adopted;
(f) the provision of service and refreshment facilities;
(g) the reversion of the road to the highway authority; and
(h) any other matters prescribed by the Secretary of State.'.—[Ms. Ruddock.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms. Ruddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No.71, in clause 6, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall not make or confirm the scheme or toll order unless it is accompanied by a concession statement fulfilling the requirements of section (concession statement) below.'.
Government amendments Nos. 28 and 105.

Ms. Ruddock: I assure you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Opposition intend to make good progress.
We tabled the new clause and the amendment because of an obvious deficiency in the Bill. We pursued the matter in Committee and felt that we had had a positive response from the Minister, but we still felt it necessary to table the new clause because we were uncertain whether the Government's response at this stage would be satisfactory. I am pleased to tell the House that we think that it probably will be.
The new clause would require a highway authority, before making a toll order, to publish a concession statement. It sets out a number of subjects that would have to be covered in such a statement. We believe that it represents the legitimate interests of road users and of organisations such as local authorities. There is no requirement in the Bill for concession agreements to be published—indeed, the Government rejected moves to enforce the publication of agreements on the ground that some of their content might be commercially confidential.
The new clause makes allowance for that by requiring the publication of a statement covering aspects of the agreement rather than the agreement as a whole.
The Minister's response to the demands that we made in Committee is reflected in Government amendments Nos. 28 and 105. Those amendments are welcome and, if I can elicit certain assurances from the Minister, they may be as acceptable to us as is our new clause. Unlike new clause 8, amendment No. 28 does not specify the content of the statement. It leaves that to regulations. We concede that there may be some merit in doing that. It is on that matter that we seek assurances. Does the Minister intend to cover in the regulations the issues listed in new clause 8? I am sure that he appreciates that I seek his assurances on that general point.
Perhaps the Minister will also understand if I raise one specific and additional point. New clause 8(2)(c) refers to the policing of concession roads. The costs of policing toll roads were discussed in some detail in Committee. The Minister said that the Government had reviewed their position and considered that concessionaires should be required to meet the cost of policing concession roads only where those roads did not form part of a public highway.
Since the debates in Committee, the implications of parts I and II of the Bill for the police have been considered by several police authorities. On 11 April, the general purposes committee of West Midlands police authority resolved that efforts should be made to ensure that
the police are able to recover their full costs from concessionaires of any activities undertaken with regard to concession roads.
On 10 May, the finance and policy committee of Greater Manchester police authority agreed to support the views expressed by West Midlands police authority.
Given that there is increasing anxiety on the issue of policing, it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us whether there is anything to prevent an agreement being reached between a highway authority and a concessionaire that provides for the concessionaire to contribute to the cost of policing the road.
Having raised that specific point with the Minister, and in the interests of making rapid progress, it remains only for me to remind the Minister that his response to our query on the content of the proposed regulations will determine our attitude to pressing the new clause.

7 pm

Mr. Freeman: I shall seek to be brief on this point. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) for implying that she might find Government amendment No. 28 and the parallel Scottish amendment acceptable instead of her new clause 8. She raised a couple of points. First, she asked what was likely to be in the regulations. We agreed in Committee that we would like a summary of the concession agreement to be published for all those interested prior to the public inquiry. However, concession agreements are often voluminous and the hon. Lady agreed that it was unreasonable to expect them all to be published. Without commitment, I can tell the hon. Lady that most of what the new clause suggests would commend itself to inclusion in draft regulations. We shall consult on the regulations before they are presented to Parliament.
The hon. Lady's second point was about policing. I am not sure that she reported accurately what I said in Committee. Detailed arrangements for particular roads can be covered in the concession agreement. There may be circumstances in which the concessionaire and the highway authority wish to reach agreement on the arrangements. That would be entirely a matter for them. I make it clear that, as a general policy, toll roads for which the Government see a need and which by definition qualify for the roads programme should be policed at public expense. After all, they are part of the Queen's highway and are public highways.
I see no logical reason for separating toll roads from publicly financed free roads. Any category of user permitted to use the toll road has an absolute right to use that road. It would be neither fair nor reasonable to argue that there should be any impediment or disincentive to the emergency services, including the police, to cover those roads.
In conclusion—I seek to be brief—on some roads, perhaps those which are not in the roads programme, a concession agreement could be reached which covered policing responsibilities and the apportionment of cost.

Ms. Ruddock: I am grateful to the Minister. Those assurances are satisfactory to us. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

CONCESSION AGREEMENTS

Mr. Thomas McAvoy: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 15, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall issue a code of practice giving guidance on the matters to be dealt with in the concession agreement; and in entering into a concession agreement a highway authority shall have regard to any such code of practice.'.
As you asked us to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, intend to be brief.
The effect of the amendment would be to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice on the contents of concession agreements. A highway authority entering into such an agreement would have to have regard to the contents of the code. This would apply whether the highway authority was the Department of Transport or a local authority.
The concession agreement is the kernel of parts I and II of the Bill—it is the document which gives a company the right to charge a toll on a road in return for having built it and undertaken to maintain and operate it. The concession agreement is defined in the first line of the first clause in the Bill.
It is inevitable, therefore, that the concept of the agreements has been the subject of amendments at every stage of the Bill's parliamentary process. Amendments have been primarily aimed at agreements. They have attempted both to define the basic content of the agreements and to probe the Government's mind on what issues can legitimately be included in agreements—subject, inevitably, to the acceptance of both parties to an agreement.
The subjects that we have raised in debates include environmental responsibilities; links between the concession road and the local highway network; design and


construction standards applying to the road maintenance arrangements; the provision of service and refreshment facilities; and arrangements for the reversion of the road to the public sector.
In response to debates Ministers have fought shy of attempting to define the likely contents of an agreement in the Bill. For example, in Committee the Minister said that the concession agreement was
a contract between the highway authority and the successful concessionaire. It is a long, technical document containing what would normally be classified as information in commercial confidence.
He went on to argue that he hoped that
the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford does not expect too much from the concession agreement. It is an important document, but it should not be prescriptive."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, c. 50–51.]
Presumably the Minister did not mean that the agreement should not be prescriptive—as a contract, it must, by definition, be prescriptive—but that the Bill should not be prescriptive about the contents of agreements. If so, the Minister's argument has some validity. The contents of an agreement must inevitably reflect local needs and circumstances; and the content of agreements is likely to change and develop over time.
But there is also a strong case for some guidance or ground rules on the context in which individual agreements would be formulated. The contents of concession agreements are bound to be the subject of negotiation between a highway authority—in most cases the Secretary of State—and the prospective concessionaire. It is important that the travelling public and other authorities are protected against the possibility of the highway authority giving too much away to the concessionaire in an effort to secure the company's agreement to construct the road.
A code of practice along the lines proposed in the amendment would set out the ground rules against which individual agreements could be judged. It could also contain advice that would be of use to both highway authorities and companies considering entering into an agreement. A code of practice would also be capable of being amended and updated in the light of experience.

Mr. Freeman: In this Bill we are responsible for more codes of practice than in any other piece of legislation in the past 10 years. I accept the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly some guidance will be needed at the outset. I give an assurance that a circular will be issued to all local authorities at the outset.
On a prescriptive code of practice, I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that one probably needs some experience of operating toll roads. It would not be sensible to issue any non-statutory code at the outset. We trust local highway authorities to have the good sense to get on with the task, if they are minded to introduce toll roads. I hope that some of them will. However, I am under no illusions that initially the initiative will rest with the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland. I do not rule out a code of practice, but not at the outset. To begin with, there will be a guidance circular. If its provisions need to be encapsulated more precisely in a code of practice later, so be it.

Mr. McAvoy: How would the environmental aspect be encompassed in a circular?

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the circular that is to be issued at the outset, I hope that he will bear with me if I do not detail all the elements that will be included in it. However, I can give him a clear assurance that all the environmental aspects will be covered—in particular, environmental assessment, the procedure for consultation and the procedure for taking into account the views of those who have an appellate right to express their opinions about the construction of a particular road. These are absolutely central issues. I hope that there is no political divide on the importance of a proper and full environmental assessment. I hope that, having heard those comments, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. McAvoy: I am grateful to the Minister for his co-operative attitude. The assurances that he has given are most welcome. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (6).

Schedule 2

PROCEDURE IN CONNECTION WITH TOLL ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 97, line 2, at end insert—
'(3) Where the special road to which the toll order relates is to be subject to a concession, the Secretary of State or the local highway authority shall make available for inspection with the copy of the draft order or of the order, as the case may be, a statement containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to the concessionaire and the concession agreement.
The notice under sub-paragraph (1) or (2) shall indicate that such a statement will be so available for inspection.
(4) In sub-paragraph (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 98, line 15, at end insert—

'Special parliamentary procedure where existing highway appropriated or transferred

8A.—(1) A toll order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure where—

(a) the relevant special road scheme provides for the appropriation by or transfer to the special road authority of an existing highway comprised in the route prescribed by the scheme, and
(b) the toll order authorises the charging of tolls for the use of that existing highway or any part of it,
unless the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards all classes of traffic entitled to use the existing highway that another reasonably convenient route free of toll is available, or will be provided before the date on which the appropriation or transfer takes effect, and certifies accordingly.

(2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to give such a certificate, he shall—

(a) give public notice of his intention to do so,
(b) afford an opportunity to all persons interested to make representations and objections, and
(c) cause a public local inquiry to be held if it appears to him to be expedient to do so, having regard to representations or objections made,


and before deciding whether to give the certificate he shall consider any representations and objections made and, if an inquiry has been held, the report of the person who held the inquiry.

(3) As soon as may be after giving a certificate, the Secretary of State shall publish in the London Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the certificate has been given.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government amendments: Nos. 39, 40, 72, 108 and 111 to 114.

Mr. Freeman: We have tabled this amendment in response to a point raised by the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) and others. What we are seeking to do in what, on the face of it, may seem to be a draconian measure is to ensure that, where any part of the existing public highway that is free and untolled is proposed to be incorporated into a toll road—there may be circumstances where that is inescapable, necessary and sensible—tough protection is provided. The concessionaire would be able to choose not to toll a specific small section of a road that was previously a public highway. If, however, it is to be tolled, the Secretary of State would be asked to certify that there was a reasonably convenient free alternative.
The certification procedure would be subject to objection and public inquiry, where necessary. If the Secretary of State could not certify that there was an alternative, or a road that could be specially constructed by the concessionaire to fulfil that requirement, there is a special parliamentary procedure. It is a very special procedure. I understand that it has been used only twice since 1945. It was last used for the Okehampton bypass. It means in essence that Parliament must make a decision. It may seem that these measures are too draconian, but the Government take seriously the view that there should be a compromise so that the public can continue to use the existing public highway.

Ms. Ruddock: I think the Minister has begun to answer my point. I had intended to ask him how he would define a reasonably free and convenient road as an alternative. I think that he has just acknowledged that it might not be available. That would be my contention. In the circumstances that we are considering, it would be difficult to define that reasonable alternative.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's agreement.

Mr. Fearn: I thank the Minister for handling this matter very well indeed. His reply to what I proposed in Committee is very satisfactory. He referred to small sections of public road that may need to be incorporated in a toll road. Small sections would probably be ignored. Alternative routes would have to be found for larger sections. If, however, half of a proposed toll road is a public road now, how would the Minister treat it? Would the concessionaire have to put something back into the public purse, since it belongs to the highway authority and local people?

Mr. Freeman: I find it hard to conceive of circumstances in which half a proposed toll road would previously have

been a public highway. I imagine that the concessionaire would say that, if one used only the public highway portion and got on or off it there, one would not pay a toll. If, however, one used the whole of a toll road incorporating a previously untolled portion of the public highway, the toll would be commensurately reduced. The toll would cover, therefore, only that portion of road space that was a toll road. If there is to be a toll—and that is a big "if'—a public alternative must be built. In practical terms, if it does not already exist it will have to be provided by the concessionaire, who will have to build it into his costs. Alternatively, Parliament must make a decision. That seems to be watertight. I hope that I carry the House with me, although perhaps not entirely.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the Minister take amendment No. 40 into account? I have well understood what he has just said; I follow its logic. However, amendment No. 40 throws into doubt what he has just said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39. As I understand it, amendment No. 40 is designed to prevent an order from extending tolls to part of a special road on which they have not previously applied. That seems to imply that it could lead to part of a toll road not being tolled. Is that correct?
Furthermore, some parts of the concession roads need not be tolled at all. The only circumstances in which I can envisage that being acceptable to concessionaires is possibly where there is a development gain that can be offset against the "free part" of the road. In that slightly confused way perhaps, may I ask the Minister to relate what he has said about amendments Nos. 38 and 39 to amendment No. 40?

Mr. Freeman: I can help the hon. Lady. Amendment No. 40 seeks—after we have shut, bolted, barred and padlocked the door—to ensure that there is no subsequent variation of the toll order by introducing a toll for that portion of the toll road that was previously public. The amendment has been added in an effort to make absolutely certain that no attempt can be made to take away the public's right to what is now a free and untolled public highway.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 39, in page 98, line 37, at end insert—

'9A.—(1) In relation to a toll order which is subject to special parliamentary procedure—

(a) if the order is confirmed by Act of Parliament under section 6 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945, paragraph 9 above does not apply;
(b)—in any other case, that paragraph has effect subject to the following modifications —
(i) the reference in sub-paragraph (I) to the date on which the notice required by paragraph 8 is published (or first published) shall be construed as a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Act of 1945, and
(ii) in sub-paragraph (5) the words "and shall become operative" to the end shall be omitted.

(2) The provisions of paragraph 9(1) to (3) and (5) above apply in relation to a certificate under paragraph 8A as in relation to a toll order, subject to the following modifications—

(a) the reference in sub-paragraph (1) to the notice required by paragraph 8 shall be construed as a reference to the notice required by paragraph 8A(3), and
(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for "made or confirmed" substitute "given" and omit the words from "and shall become operative" to the end.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 8

AMOUNT OF TOLLS CHARGEABLE BY CONCESSIONAIRE

Ms. Walley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 5, line 41, leave out from 'if' to end of line 43 and insert—

'(a) the road to which the order relates consists of or includes a major crossing to which there is no reasonably convenient alternative, or
(b) the highway authority and concessionaire agree that it should do so.'.
I shall attempt to be as brief as I possibly can, to speed up the proceedings.
We believe that this is a flexible amendment that deals with meeting transport needs. It moves away from the market forces that the Government are so concerned about. Only through clause 8 is it possible to regulate cases that apply to major crossings. The amendment would change that by allowing tolls to be regulated, but only where the highway authority and the concessionaire agreed that the regulation would be appropriate. The matter was discussed in Committee and the Government thought that this was a wrecking amendment, but that is not so. Perhaps some examples from the west midlands will show the importance of further regulation being incorporated in the Bill.
I should like to quote from a letter sent by the secretary of the west midlands planning and transportation sub-committee to the Department of Transport. The letter expresses concern about the proposal that the western orbital route and the Birmingham northern relief road should be developed as concession roads. The subcommittee contains representatives of the seven metropolitan district councils in the west midlands. The letter said that the tolling of the two roads was of great concern to the west midlands conurbation as a whole. I know that the Minister is aware of that. The letter states:
It is likely that traffic volume on the M5 and M6 through the conurbation will not be significantly reduced as drivers will continue to use the free routes unless there is a significant benefit to them.
The Department replied in a letter dated 24 April which states:
You question the benefits that a tolled road would offer by way of relief to the M5 and M6. In order to establish a viable business the operator of a tolled road would have to attract a substantial number of road users by means of a competitive toll.
In that context, the Department was looking at market forces that would encourage the concessionaire to build the road in the first place rather than at the whole issue of transport needs, which the amendment addresses. When transport needs that a road is intended to meet involve taking traffic away from an existing route, it is essential for the highway authority to be able to ensure that the toll is set at a level that will achieve that objective. That is why we have tabled the amendment.
The amendment would allow tolls to be regulated only where agreement had been reached between the highway authority and the concessionaire. Circumstances may emerge in which a prospective concessionaire proposes a toll road which the highway authority is prepared to accept, provided that the level of the toll can be regulated. Rather than back out completely, the concessionaire may be prepared to accept that condition—subject, of course, to the rules and regulations being agreed.
The Bill does not allow for such an agreement, but the amendment would provide some flexibility and, in

appropriate circumstances, will enable highway authorities to take advantage of private sector finance while at the same time protecting the interests of the road user through toll regulations.
I urge the Minister not to dismiss our amendment by calling it a wrecking amendment, but to agree that in some circumstances it might be highly pragmatic to go beyond the tight constraints of clause 8 and consider regulation where there was agreement between the parties concerned.

Mr. Freeman: In some circumstances, the concessionaires and the highway authority will want to agree on regulating tolls, and there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. The hon. Lady does not believe in toll roads; for her it is a hypothetical problem, because she will never be in a position to negotiate with concessionaires. We strongly believe in toll roads and think that the Birmingham northern relief road and the western orbital route will bring great benefits to the west midlands. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will shortly be able to make a statement about a further stage in the process of bringing the western orbital route to fruition.
The Government do not see a case for regulating the tolls on either of those two roads. They are not monopolies, and there will be public alternatives. There is a case for regulation over estuarial crossings on which there is a monopoly, and that is written into the Bill. We do not intend to enter into any agreement with any concessionaires to regulate or limit the tolls on toll roads over which the Secretary of State for Transport has a control. However, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent others from doing so. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady.

Ms. Walley: I am not as reassured as the Minister might think. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF TOLL ORDER

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 7, line 38, at end insert
'; and a toll order which does not authorise the charging of tolls in respect of the whole length of the special road to which it relates may not be varied so as to extend the length of road in respect of which tolls may be charged.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 12

EXTENSION TOLL ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 8, line 28, leave out 'and'.

No. 30, in page 8, line 29, at end insert
',and
section (Annual report on concession agreements and toll orders) (annual report by Secretary of State).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 13

FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO CHARGING OF TOLLS

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 8, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 9 and insert—



'(a) a police vehicle, identifiable as such by writing or markings on it or otherwise by its appearance, if being used for police purposes;
(b) an ambulance as defined in section 4(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971;
(c) a fire engine as so defined;
(d) a vehicle exempt from duty under that Act by virtue of—
section 4(1)(g) of that Act (invalid carriages),
section 4(1)(kb) of that Act (vehicles used for carriage of disabled persons by recognised bodies), or
section 7(2) of that Act (vehicles used by or for purposes of disabled person).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments:
No. 36, in page 9, line 3, at end insert—
'(c) a vehicle diverted on to the concession road by a police constable.'.
Government amendments Nos. 32, 78 and 79.

Mr. Freeman: I can be brief because the hon. Gentleman to whom I would have been responding, the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen), is not in his place. Therefore, I shall record briefly that the amendments seek to provide, as we all wish, free passage for police vehicles, ambulances, fire engines, invalid carriages and vehicles used for the carriage on toll roads of disabled persons by recognised bodies which, of course, are exempt from vehicle excise duty.
Individual toll orders could add additional categories, if that were appropriate. Amendment No. 32 and the equivalent Scottish amendment No. 79 essentially provide that the design of the toll routes should facilitate the free and unimpeded passage of these vehicles. These are uncontroversial amendments and I hope that they will be accepted.

Ms. Walley: The main Government amendments are obvious, and we cannot understand why their provisions were not in the Bill. However, we are glad to welcome them. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for pursuing the matter in Committee.
We share the concern about safety which we understand has been expressed by the West Midlands police authority, whose general purposes committee thinks that the Bill should be amended to reflect the right of the police to direct traffic to toll roads in cases of emergency or other appropriate need without penalty to the drivers of the vehicles so directed. I understand that that view is shared by the Greater Manchester police authority.
It is clear from the west midlands example that concesson roads could be designed to provide an alternative route for traffic that is currently using motorways. Does the Minister share our concern about that? In the interests of public safety, does he agree with the amendment?

Mr. Freeman: My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) also spoke in Committee to amendment No. 36. I understand the arguments in favour of the amendment, but I am not sympathetic to them because, as I hope I explained to members of the Committee, the police powers on roads are negative, not positive. At present the police cannot direct a motorist to use another road, although they can tell him that he cannot go any further because there has been an accident

or a fire. I do not want to amend the general law on police powers on roads. I hope that common sense will prevail when an accident occurs on a toll road. In any case, the hon. Lady knows that traffic often reverses down the carriageway of a motorway. Perhaps the hon. Lady is thinking about the M6 and the Birmingham northern relief road. If there is a major accident, there are well-established procedures for reversing traffic safely to the nearest exit point.
I do not envisage that it will present a practical problem. To the extent that it presents a hypothetical problem, the common sense of the owners of the toll roads—the concessionaires—will mean that in practice they will permit traffic on to the toll road if there is a dire emergency. If the accident occurs just before the entrance to a toll road, I hope—and all reasonable people would hope—that that traffic would be allowed on to the toll road.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16

FACILMES FOR COLLECTION OF TOLLS

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 10, line 29, at end insert—
'() Those responsible for the design and construction of facilities for the collection of tolls, and those responsible for the collection of tolls at such facilities, shall have due regard to the need to avoid delaying the passage of such vehicles as are mentioned in section 13(2)(a), (b) or (c) (police vehicles, ambulances and fire engines).'.
No. 33, in page 10, line 36, leave out 'valuation' and insert 'rating'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in line 39, leave out
'may be necessary or convenient'
and insert 'are reasonably required'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 73 and 80.

Mr. Freeman: This is slightly more than a technical amendment. It tightens the definition of which part of the toll booths and the equipment necessary for tolling roads should be free from rates. It tightens the present provision which describes the part of the equipment that should enjoy that facility which was described as "necessary or convenient"—I think that that was the will of the Committee—and makes it that which is "reasonably required". I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

New Clause 9

REPORT ON TOLL ROADS AND TOLL ORDERS IN SCOTLAND

'.—(1) In any calendar year in which there occurs an event to which this section applies, the Secretary of State shall in respect of that year lay before Parliament a report informing Parliament of that occurrence or, as the case may be, the number of such occurrences.

(2) This section applies to the following events—

(a) the Secretary of State enters into a contract for the design and construction of a road which is to be subject to a toll order;


(b) there is opened to public use a new road subject to a toll order for which he is the roads authority;
(c) a toll order, or an order varying or revoking a toll order, is made or confirmed by him.
(3) A report under this section shall contain such information as appears to him to be appropriate with respect to the toll orders (whenever made) which are in force during that year or any part of it.
(4) A report under this section shall be laid on or before 31st July in the following calendar year.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF PROJECTS INVOLVING SPECIAL ROADS IN SCOTLAND

'.—(1) In section 20A of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (environmental assessment of certain road construction projects), after subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) insert—
(2A) Any project for the construction of a special road which falls within Annex II to the Directive shall be treated as having such characteristics that it should be made subject to an environmental assessment in accordance with the Directive.".
(2) In section 55A of that Act (environmental assessment of certain road improvement projects), in subsection (2) (cases in which environmental statement must be published) after the word "and" there shall be inserted the words "either the project is in respect of a special road or the project".'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 25

TOLL ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 72, in page 16, line 11, leave out
'and paragraphs 15 and 18 of Part III'
and insert
',paragraphs 15 and 18 of Part III and Part IV".
No. 73, in page 16, line 45, leave out from 'facilities' to 'for' in line 46 and insert
'within the boundary of the road or on land adjoining the road as are reasonably required'
No. 74, in page 17, line 1, leave out subsection (10). —[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 28

EXTENSION TOLL ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 18, line 39, leave out 'and'.
No. 76, in page 18, line 40 at end insert ', and
() section (Report on toll roads and toll orders in Scotland) (report by Secretary of State).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 32

VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF TOLL ORDER

Amendment made: No. 108, in page 20, line 37, at end insert—
'() A toll order which does not authorise the charging of tolls in respect of he whole length of the special road to which it relates may not be varied so as to extend the length of road in respect of which tolls may be charged.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 33

TRANSFER OR TERMINATION OF ASSIGNATION

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 38, at end insert—
'(6) References in this Part to the termination of an assignation are references to the termination of the rights assigned under the assignation.'.
This a minor technical amendment. It merely makes it clear that the references to an assignation ceasing are interpreted as references to rights under an assignation ceasing which, in strict legal terms, is more correct. The amendment is necessary only to avoid any ambiguities and does not change the intended effect of any of the provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34

FURTHER PROVISION AS TO CHARGING OF TOLLS

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 21, line 46, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 22 and insert—

'(a) a police vehicle, identifiable as such by writing or markings on it or otherwise by its appearance, if being used for police purposes;
(b) an ambulance as defined in section 4(2) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971;
(c) a fire engine as so defined;
(d) a vehicle exempt from duty under that Act by virtue of—

section 4(1)(g) of that Act (invalid carriages),
section 4(1)(kb) of that Act (vehicles used for carriage of disabled persons by recognised bodies), or
section 7(2) of that Act (vehicles used by or for purposes of disabled person).'.

No. 79, in page 23, line 29, at end insert—
'() Those responsible for the design and construction of facilities for the collection of tolls, and those responsible for the collection of tolls at such facilities, shall have due regard to the need to avoid delaying the passage of such vehicles as are mentioned in section 34(2)(a), (b) or (c) (police vehicles, ambulances and fire engines).'.

No. 80, in page 23, line 38, leave out
'may be necessary or convenient'
and insert 'are reasonably required'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

New Clause 7

CHARGE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE HIGHWAY WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing street works in a maintainable highway to pay a charge to the highway authority where—

(a) the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and
(b) the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

(2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the undertaker to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable, for completion of the works in question.

In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.

(3) The regulations may provide that if an undertaker has reason to believe that the duration of works will exceed the prescribed period he may submit to the authority an estimate of their likely duration—

(a) in the case of works in connection with the initial placing of apparatus in the street in pursuance of a street works licence, together with his application for the licence,
(b) in the case of other works (not being emergency works), together with his notice under section 51 (notice of starting date), or
(c) in the case of emergency works, as soon as reasonably practicable after the works are begun,
and that the period stated in an estimate so submitted shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the undertaker that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—

(a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
(b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or
(c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works.

Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the works are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(8) The first regulations for the purposes of this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'. —[Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient also to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 53.
Government new clause 11—Charge for occupation of the road where works unreasonably prolonged. 
Government amendments Nos. 109, 66, 67, 69 and 110.

Mr. Freeman: We have now moved from toll roads to the street works portion of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will deal with some of the amendments but, with your agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall deal with the first group.
New clause 7 represents the fulfilment of a commitment made in Committee to think again about the basis of charging for occupation of the road by statutory undertakers. It represents a major change and I have, as

promised, consulted representatives of local authorities and the statutory undertakers since the Committee stage. I hope that the new clause and the related amendments will commend themselves to the House.
I shall explain as briefly but as accurately as I can the purpose of the new clause. First, it is designed as a permissive power. That means that the Secretary of State would bring into force by way of regulation and subject to affirmative resolution the power for highway authorities to charge for the occupation of roads only if he was convinced that it was necessary because there was an abuse. I think that we all want to expedite street works. We do not want roads to be dug up for longer than necessary.
The second important point is that the payment to the highway authorities made by those undertaking street works would be stipulated as maximum charges. There would be the opportunity to waive or to reduce the charges if that seemed sensible—for example, because they were too small or because there were circumstances in which it was not sensible to pursue the matter. That would be for the judgment of the highway authorities. However, the payment would be made only after a minimum free period which could be, for example, a week—I use that period only for illustrative purposes—so that all street works, whether they are to dig up and repair a gas main, to lay cable television or to allow British Telecom to put in new works for telephone subscribers, would be covered by the same blanket minimum free period to be prescribed in regulations.
Payment would start clocking up only on a per diem basis and perhaps on the basis of the extent to which the road was blocked, after the expiration of a reasonable period. That period which would have to be agreed between the highway authority and the statutory undertaker would clearly have to be greater than the minimum period. However, once the undertaker exceeded that reasonable period, he would be liable for a charge. The basis for the maximum charge would be set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State if he were so minded and if there were evidence of continued abuse.
Concern was expressed in Committee that we did not want all the statutory undertakers—the utilities and those that have a statutory right to dig up the road—to be clobbered for the excesses, misdemeanours or laggardliness of one or two. This mechanism means that the charge would be borne by the statutory undertaker responsible for the execessive delay and would not be a burden imposed on all which would be implied by a daily charge.
The provision also covers skips in the road and scaffolding. How often have we seen scaffolding or builders' skips left unnecessarily for long periods on the roads—in traffic sensitive or non-traffic sensitive streets—merely because the contractor or the builder had either forgotten about them or found it convenient to park them on the public road or footway. We do not want that to happen unnecessarily and new clause 7 catches both examples.
We want a powerful incentive for those who dig up the road or who have works on the road—the carriageway or the footway—to carry out those works as expeditiously as possible. We do not want to place a burden on all utilities—and hence on their customers—for all their work, some which will inevitably take some time and where a reasonable period can be agreed.

Ms. Ruddock: We are dealing with the street works part of the Bill, which is the part on which we have been able to proceed with the most harmony. However, there were some sticking points and the clause that the Government seek to amend by introducing new clause 7 was one of the major difficulties encountered in Committee.
It falls to me to congratulate the Minister on listening so well to the issues that were raised in our debates and on consulting—as I know that he has—in some depth with the local authority associations and with the utilities. Our concerns and, as I understand it, those of the local authority associations and of the utilities are met in new clause 7 and the consequent amendments. We are happy to support the new clause and the amendments. They achieve what we have sought all along—to make it clear that there is only a reserve power.
I have only a few questions that seek assurances from the Minister on behalf of the local authority associations. They are concerned that the charging relief will be implemented only if the other anti-congestion elements of the Bill are shown not to be working. The Minister has suggested that, but it would be useful if he could clearly confirm it and put it on the record. Will the Department of Transport consult with the joint highway authorities utilities committee on any decision to implement the clause and on the detail of the regulations to be made?
Will the Government work to ensure that the charging regime, if it has to be administered, is as easy to administer as possible? If the charges are introduced, will they be set at a level which will at least enable the highway authorities to recover any costs they incur in administering the scheme?
If the Minister is able to respond to those few points, Labour Members will be more than satisfied.

Sir Peter Maker: I declare an interest as chairman of a cable television company.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) spoke in the way that she did. There is harmony on both sides of the House about the merits of clause 70. As the hon. Lady said, the clause caused concern in Committee, as it did to the utilities, the Cable Television Association and to the highway authorities. They all support the Bill and they understand the purpose of clause 70, but as my hon. Friend the Minister said, it punishes the class for the misdemeanours of one or two of its members and that is especially relevant to the cable television industry which is at the beginning of a long programme of cable laying in the ground. That has to be done for understandable environmental reasons. The great danger of the clause as it stood was that it would endanger investment in the cable television industry.
The utilities, the cable television industry and the highways authorities are happy with the new clause because it provides the incentive to those who dig up streets to behave properly and provides no disincentive to investment.
I add to the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Deptford to the Minister. In particular, the way in which he conducted the debates in Committee on this part of the Bill was a model of the way in which such proceedings should be conducted.

Mr. Simon Coombs: In welcoming the new clause, I declare an interest as a consultant to British Telecom.
The new clause has achieved in a straightforward and helpful manner all that was asked of my hon. Friend the Minister in Committee and in meetings outside. There were plenty of them and he listened attentively and took a constructive attitude. I thank him for that.
The new clause has confirmed what the utilities in particular were seeking, which is that the power in the new clause should be a reserve power only, that the scheme will be essentially a charge for dilatory work rather than a broad rental fee and that free periods, when no charges are payable, will be prescribed. That was the heart of what was sought and it is at the heart of the new clause. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for the help that he has given.
It will be a much simpler scheme to administer than the one previously proposed. The administrative complications of the previous scheme would have got us all into a great deal of trouble. It would have taken time and would have been costly to implement. The system in the new clause should come into effect only on relatively rare occasions when undertakings have failed to live up to the commitments that they have made to the street authority.
7.45 pm
I hope that undertakings will make doubly sure that they do not bring down on themselves the need for the implementation of the new clause. It is in their own hands to ensure that they are not faced with additional difficulties.
In Committee, we perhaps did not pay sufficient attention to the other side of the coin—the interests of road users. We considered the position of utilities and tried to ensure that their interests would be looked after as far as was possible. It is important to emphasise, however, that at no stage have hon. Members lost sight of the fact that one of the cardinal principles of the Bill is to ensure that road users have an easier right of passage along the roads of this country than has hitherto been the case, because of street works continuing for too long at the end of which the quality of the road is often impaired.
I and other hon. Members who I believe speak for road users recognise that the new clause is a strong weapon to use against an undertaking which fails to consider the interests of road users by not attempting to remove itself from a road with the minimum possible delay. It is right that we should insist that the new clause, like the clause that it replaces, ensures that road users are inconvenienced as little as possible. The proposal to introduce charges for failure to achieve rather than charges for merely being on the road at all is not a diminution of our determination to ensure that road users are able to use roads uninterrupted by the activities of undertakers.
With that point made clear, I give a warm welcome to the new clause.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister for having only recently entered the Chamber. I am sure that he will realise that I should have been delighted to be more involved, having tried unsuccessfully to take a small private Bill through the House which impinged slightly on the matters before us.
New clause 7 and the amendments to schedule 8 seem —forgive me if I am wrong—to concentrate solely on charges. I support that; it is an admirable move. However, will the power to make provision by regulations enable the


Secretary of State under schedule 8 to deal with a code of practice that might cover some of the safety factors that arise when, for example, skips are left on the road?
In the past few years, in my constituency, skips have been left on the public highway as a result of street works, sometimes with no lighting or reflectors, and that has led to one or two nasty accidents. Responsibility for that tends to be shuffled around. The same applies to large holes in the road which result from street works. I have had constituents who do not know whether to claim compensation from the contractor, the local authority or the Ministry of Transport. Will the Minister explain whether the regulations in schedule 8 deal with such a situation and whether, in the broader context, the schedule states whether there should be road signs ahead of a skip left on the road? It is a little late when one comes round the corner and finds that there is a skip in the road, so prior warning is needed.
I have been unable to find the necessary provision in the schedule, but am happy to be told that I am wrong. Will my hon. Friend the Minister of State deal with safety aspects when skips are left on the highway for any length of time?

Mr. Tim Rathbone: May I add my thanks to the Minister for his reasonable reaction to questions and criticisms of various aspects of this part of the Bill? I declare an interest as a parliamentary consultant to Seeboard. In this instance, I should thank Seeboard for educating me on the points that should be raised at this stage.
Will my hon. Friend the Minster give me an assurance on clause 91 which, although not presently under discussion, is related to the debate? It deals with statutory defences and the related question of prosecutions. I understand that my hon. Friend the Minister's officials have had meetings with legal representatives and that they have agreed that clause 91, as it relates to this discussion, is perfectly acceptable, and that points of confusion that need clarification can be explained in relevant codes of practice or through drafting amendments to defence provisions.
Will the Minister reassure me on those issues? I thank him, once again, for introducing the new clause.

Mr. Freeman: I am grateful for the comments on the way in which the Department of Transport has met concerns. The credit is entirely due to civil servants in the Department who have sought to respond to points raised in the Committee and subsequently. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon, (Mr. Coombs), for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) and for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone).
I give assurances to the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) on the four points that she raised. She need have no fear about any ambiguity.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South and I could correspond about the problem of skips. Section 139 of the Highways Act 1980 already deals with the guarding and lighting of skips. I assure my hon. Friend that the voluminous codes of practice and guidance which will issue forth from the Bill and which will be the direct

responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister for Roads and Traffic will, as far as possible, deal with the points that my hon. Friend raised. He sought to raise his concerns and those of his constituents about unlit and ill-placed skips and scaffolding. That is one of the reasons why I am grateful for his support on the new clause. We seek to have a financial penalty imposed on those who disregard common sense when expediting their work.
I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes the assurances that he sought. We have had long and detailed negotiations with the Highways and Utilities Committee which, although it was not satisfied with the outcome of all of our discussions, was satisfied with most of the key issues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes for remiding me of that procedure. May I tell HAUC, through my hon. Friend, that if it wishes to have further clarification—not on the Bill, which I hope will complete its pasage tonight—I should be glad to respond.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 3

STREET WORKS LICENCES

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 99, line 18, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Sir Peter Blaker: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 99, line 26, leave out 'or'.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 99, line 27, at end insert
',or.
() requiring the Licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations under paragraph 8 or under section 78 (liability for loss or damage caused).'.

Sir Peter Blaker: This is a paving amendment for amendment No. 14. It deals with a small but important issue on which I would welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister.
Schedule 3(3) deals with the conditions that a street authority may attach to a street works licence. There seems to be a gap in those conditions, which amendment No. 14 seeks to fill. It enables the street authority to require a licensee to give security for the performance of his obligations. That is important because, under schedule 3(8), a licensee must indemnify the street authority in respect of any injury, damage or loss that his works may cause. Under clause 78, the licensee must compensate other persons—for example, utilities—whose apparatus in the roads is damaged by the execution of his work or by bursts or explosions. However, the licensee may be a person of no financial substance. Therefore, we must ensure that the street authority has the power to require a provision of security.
I would welcome a statement from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether he thinks that such a power exists. It is not mentioned in schedule 3. The issue is made more important because, under clause 46(2), the licensee no longer has to have the consent of a utility before he starts work. That is a change from the provisions of the Highways Act 1980, under which he had to have the consent of the utility before starting work. Will the Minister explain whether the street authority already has that power and, if so, where it exists?

Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can give my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) some reassurance. The amendment deals specifically with licensees—those who dig up the roads and are not statutory undertakers, such as British Gas or British Telecom. Rather, they may be companies laying computer cable across the road, which do not already have the statutory right to dig up the road. The question is whether the licensing authority—the highways authority—has the power to satisfy itself that those who dig up the roads and could damage the apparatus of statutory undertakers are not men of straw, but have sufficient financial security and safeguards. My advice is that street authorities have such powers and responsibilities in issuing licences.
While not commending the amendment to the House, I should be happy to correspond with my right hon. Friend to clarify that issue. It is already the case, under existing legislation, that people can dig up the highway, damage the apparatus of others and be sued by them. They may not be people or companies of finanical substance, so we are not creating a new problem: it already exists. We are ameliorating it with the new controls over qualifications of supervisors and operators provided for in clause 63. We want to ensure that those who dig up the roads do so in a more professional way.
I accept that licensees should be in a position to meet any claim that is made against them. They should have the necessary financial resources to defend themselves and compensate, where appropriate. However, my Department can see no evidence of that problem at present. If evidence of damage is produced, we shall certainly discuss licensing policy with HAUC, the Highways and Utilities Committee. We can give further guidance to the highway authorities about the procedure that they will Follow to give licences in order to avoid problems arising for the statutory undertakers.
In summary, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will accept my offer to communicate further with him and substantiate my claim that the power already exists for the licensing authorities to make stipulations and requirements as they deem necessary. At present, it is not necessary to deal with the problem, but if it does arise we shall be the first to institute consultations.

Ms. Walley: If the Minister is in correspondence with his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), will he send a duplicate copy of any letters to the Opposition so that we may be kept informed of all developments?

Mr. Freeman: That goes without saying. I have always done that and will continue to do so.

Sir Peter Blaker: In light of my hon. Friend's assurances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48

EMERGENCY WORKS

8 pm

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 29, line 9, at end insert
'(or which the person responsible for the works believes on reasonable grounds to be existing or imminent)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 81.

Mr. Freeman: I hope that I can be brief——

Mr. Don Dixon: The Minister had better be brief if he wants to finish the Bill tonight.

Mr. Freeman: I shall be exceedingly brief.
The amendment relates to clause 48 and deals with the problem that arose when a foreman arrived at an emergency where a gas main was leaking. Members of the Committee and utilities felt strongly that there should be no doubt in the foreman's mind that he had to get on with the job—as I am trying to do—and solve the problem. The amendment inserts the words: "believes on reasonable grounds". I hope that that meets the point raised primarily by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) and all the points that were made.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54

RESTRICTION ON WORKS FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL ROAD WORKS

Mr. Freeman: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 32, line 5, leave out
'which consists of or includes a carriageway'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 44 to 46 and 82 to 85.

Mr. Freeman: The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will be glad to know that this is the last amendment with which I shall deal personally tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was particularly interested in the amendment, as were a number of my hon. Friends. They were worried that the Bill did not seem to provide for circumstances related to footways, cycle tracks and pedestrian ways—in which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) was interested. They were concerned about what would happen when the highway authority had prepared not only the road but the footway and cycle track. I pay tribute to the high standard of maintenance of the roads and footways of Wandsworth, with which I was immensely impressed. The borough was also extremely helpful and courteous in giving me advice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea raised a fair point in Committee. We have sought to remove any doubt on the subject. We want the 12-month restriction, subject to the road having to be dug up in an emergency, to protect the work done on carriageways, footways and cycle tracks. The amendment also suggests that we should provide, in regulations, definitions of major works. We believe that the definition originally contained in the Bill was too prescriptive and we want to consult further on that. If, within the 12-month period, consent to dig up the carriageway, footway, cycle tracks or pedestrian tracks is withheld unreasonably, we believe that there should be a procedure for arbitration.

Ms. Walley: We are grateful that there has been a further concession to cyclists and we welcome the progress that has been made.

Mr. Frank Haynes: As a cyclist, I am particularly interested in what the Minister had to say. He


bragged about what had been done in Wandsworth, but he should look at Westminster. I am a cyclist and I find all the holes. It is high time that the Government got stuck into Westminster. My local authority does a first-class job on its roads, but down here when I am on my cycle morning and night it is murder. I want the Minister to look at Westminster. It is no good bragging about another local authority—let us deal with Westminster, right on the job.

Mr. John Bowis: If my hon. Friend the Minister intends to take up the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes), will he insert a new clause in the Bill to protect the pedestrians of Wandsworth from the hon. Member for Ashfield on his bike, should he ever come across the river? If the hon. Gentleman sticks to his boat and looks from afar at the roads in Wandsworth, I am sure that he will endorse the glowing and worthy tribute that my hon. Friend paid to the council and workmen of Wandsworth for what they have achieved.
I endorse what has been said by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms. Walley) and for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his consideration in the consultation period between Committee stage and this stage, and the work that he has done to find solutions to the problems raised. I am also grateful to him for the progress that he has made on other parts of the Bill—and he should take it as read that those sentiments apply to any future progress he may make.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 32, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
'For this purpose substantial road works means works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, of such description as may be prescribed.'.

No. 45, in page 33, line 2, leave out
'(which shall not be unreasonably withheld)'.

No. 46, in page 33, line 9, at end insert—
'() The consent of the street authority under subsection (5)(b) shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any question whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable shall be settled by arbitration.'—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 55

GENERAL DUTY OF STREET AUTHORITY TO CO-ORDINATE WORKS

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Christopher Chope): I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 33, line 26, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 48, 86 and 87.

Mr. Chope: The amendment is a direct response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) in Committee. After reflection, the Government have accepted the suggestion that he put forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 56

GENERAL DUTY OF UNDERTAKERS TO CO-OPERATE

Amendment made: No. 48, in page 34, line 10, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 57

PROTECTED STREETS

Amendments made: No. 49, in page 34, line 22, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'() The consent of the street authority is required for the placing of apparatus by an undertaker in a protected street, except as mentioned below.
The following are "protected streets" for this purpose—

(a) any highway or proposed highway which is a special road in accordance with section 16 of the Highways Act 1980, and
(b) any street designated by the street authority as protected.
() Consent is not required for the placing of apparatus—

(a) by way of renewal of existing apparatus, or
(b) in pursuance of a street works licence, unless, in the latter case, the licence was granted before the street became a protected street.'.

No. 50, in page 34, line 38, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Schedule 4

STREETS WITH SPECIAL ENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES

Amendment made: No. 51, in page 101, line 22, leave out

'or part of a street'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 65

WORKS LIKELY TO AFFECT OTHER APPARATUS IN THE STREET

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 52, in page 38, leave out lines 24 to 34 and insert
'take all reasonably practicable steps—

(a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 62, 64, 65, 91, 101, 103 and 104.

Mr. Chope: The amendment is in response to points raised in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister undertook to consider further whether the additional defences of taking all reasonable care to comply with some provisions in this part of the Bill were required. The amendments arise from further consideration of those representations and have been discussed with the utilities and the local authorities.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I raised this point in Committee and am extremely grateful to the Government for taking it on board so reasonably. I use the word "reasonably" advisedly because that was the substance of the points that we raised, and of the amendments. It seems right that an undertaking which has shown that it has acted in a reasonable manner at all times should be able to put that


forward as a defence against any accusation that it has failed to deliver on the agreements that it has made with the street authority. The Government have clearly thought carefully about that and come to the conclusion that that defence should be available. The amendments are the result of that consideration and I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he has brought them forward.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 70

FEE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE HIGHWAY

Amendment made: No. 53, in page 41, line 36, leave out clause 70. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 77

DUTY TO MAINTAIN APPARATUS

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 45, line 34, leave out 'safety, the' and insert 'the safety and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 55 to 57 and 92 to 96.

Mr. Chope: The amendments respond to concern expressed in Committee about possible unwarranted interference by relevant authorities with an undertaker's apparatus and I hope that they meet the points raised.

Ms. Ruddock: I wish to record our appreciation of the fact that the amendment has been tabled. Concerns were expressed, particularly by local authority associations and the utilities. Clearly, the amendments meet those points and we are grateful.

Mr. Rathbone: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister again for taking into consideration the arguments made by the utilities on that subject and on the next group of amendments. Will he reassure the House that the issues raised by the utilities after the Committee stage, during the helpful discussions that his office had with their legal and practical advisers, have been met by these amendments? I think that they have, but I should be grateful for that reassurance.

Mr. Chope: I am happy to give that assurance.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 45, line 37, leave out 'in it' and insert
'of the authority in the street'.

No. 56, in page 46, line 1, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3) If an undertaker fails to give a relevant authority the facilities required by this section—

(a) the street authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and
(b) any other relevant authority may in any case, execute such works as are needed to enable them to inspect the apparatus in question, including any necessary breaking up or opening of the street.

(4) If an undertaker fails to secure that apparatus is maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority in accordance with this section—

(a) the street authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and
(b) any other relevant authority may in any case, execute any emergency works needed in consequence of the failure.'.

No. 57, in page 46, line 15, at end insert—
'() Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) shall be construed as excluding any other means of securing compliance with the duties imposed by subsection (1):—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 78

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS CAUSED

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 46, line 18, leave out from 'any' to ', and' and insert—
'damage or loss suffered by the authority in their capacity as such'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 59 to 61 and Nos. 97 to 100.

Mr. Chope: Again, these are amendments in response to representations made on behalf of the utilities in Committee. I hope that they will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. The Government have recognised the case put by the utilities that the Bill, as originally drafted, would have left undertakings in the invidious position of being liable for economic losses which would simply have been uninsurable. The amendments will limit compensation for costs reasonably incurred in making good damage to apparatus. Again, that is a most helpful move by the Government in response to the approaches made and I am grateful to my hon. Friend.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 46, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert
'expense reasonably incurred in making good damage to that apparatus'.

No. 60, in page 46, line 40, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.

No. 61, in page 46, line 43, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'. —[Mr. Chope]

Clause 79

WORKS FOR ROAD PURPOSES LIKELY TO AFFECT APPARATUS IN THE STREET

Amendment made: No. 62, in page 47, leave out lines 8 to 17 and insert
'take all reasonably practicable steps—

(a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to it.'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 81

SHARING OF COST OF NECESSARY MEASURES

Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 48, line 14, leave out from 'undertaker' to 'make' in line 28 and insert
'in such manner as may be prescribed.
(2) The regulations may make provision as to the costs allowable for this purpose.
Provision may, in particular, be made for disallowing costs of the undertaker—



(a) where the apparatus in question was placed in the street after the authority had given the undertaker the prescribed notice of their intention to execute the works, or
(b) in respect of measures taken to remedy matters for which the authority were not to blame,
and for allowing only such costs of either party as are not recoverable from a third party.
(3) Where the authority have a right to recover from a third party their costs in taking measures in relation to undertaker's apparatus but in accordance with section 80 it is determined that the measures should be taken by the undertaker, the right of the authority includes a right to recover the undertaker's costs in taking those measures and they shall account to the undertaker for any sum received.
(4) The regulations shall provide for the allowable costs to be borne by the authority and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.
Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.
(5) The regulations may require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him from the betterment or deferment of renewal of the apparatus resulting from the measures taken.
(6) The regulations may'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 102 and 68.

Mr. Chope: These amendments redraft the provisions contained in the Bill and I hope that they can be accepted without further debate.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 84

BRIDGES, BRIDGE AUTHORITIES AND RELATED MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 64, in page 50, leave out lines 13 to 24 and insert
'take all reasonably practicable steps—

(a) to give the bridge authority reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by them which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the bridge or for securing access to it.'.—[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 88

SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AS TO DISPLAYING OF LIGHTS

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 52, line 20, at end insert—
'() In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the undertaker to show that all reasonable care was taken by him, and by his contractors and by persons in his employ or that of his contractors, to secure that no such failure occurred.'. —[Mr. Chope.]

Clause 90

POWER OF STREET AUTHORITY OR DISTRICT COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE STREET WORKS

Mr. Graham Riddick: I beg to move amendment No. 116, in page 53, line 17, at end insert—
'() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 117, in clause 149, page 86, line 28, at end insert—
'() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Riddick: Hon. Members will not be surprised that I have tabled these two amendments, because I expressed some concern about clause 90 on Second Reading.
Clause 90 allows local authorities to carry out reinstatement work for the utility companies. I have discussed with some of my hon. Friends the desirability of dropping clause 90, but they pointed out that there would be certain practical difficulties with that and they felt that there should, at the very least, be a transitional period. I accept and hope that my amendments reflect those concerns. They would give the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland the power to bring an order before Parliament ending the right of local authorities to carry out street works on behalf of the utility companies.
The Government are encouraging the trend that local authorities should be enabling rather than providing authorities. The Bill follows that pattern and effectively puts the onus on the utility companies to carry out reinstatement work, while turning the local highways department into enabling or, indeed, regulatory authorities. That is fine and I support that approach.
However, clause 90 then allows local authorities to tender for that same reinstatement work. A potential conflict of interest is immediately created. It is possible that less scrupulous local authorities will abuse that regulatory role, so as to encourage the utilities to give the work to their direct labour organisations. I smelt a rat on Second Reading when the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) congratulated the Government on including clause 90 in the Bill. It is not really surprising that Labour supports it, as it believes in public rather than private enterprise and in maintaining the power and employment of the members of the National Union of Public Employees within DLOs.
Having seen how some local authorities have gone out of their way to undermine competitive tendering in a number of fields to keep those functions in house, I fear that some of those authorities will abuse their new powers and will perhaps distort costings to submit artificially low tenders for reinstatement work under these arrangements simply to keep their DLOs in existence, to the disadvantage of local charge payers. The proof of that is already there for people to see. My local council, Kirklees, like many others, insists that it should carry out permanent reinstatement work on street works, as it is allowed to do under the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950, despite the fact that experience suggests that it is not wholly competent to do it. Potholes in Kirklees roads are proof of that, as is the fact that nearly £4 million remains unclaimed from the utilities for permanent reinstatement work, which the council should have carried out in the past four years but has failed to carry out.
By all means let the DLOs tender for reinstatement work, but let it be from the private sector, where they have to compete fairly and freely, without hidden subsidy.
I hope that my hon. Friends will accept my two amendments this evening and I suggest that it would be


sensible to lay out a clear timetable for the transition to the new arrangements and to state that those powers will be exercised, perhaps around the end of 1992.
I know that we want to make rapid progress with the Bill, and so I shall end my comments there. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments and I urge all my hon. Friends to support them.

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) says that the House will not be surprised that he has tabled the amendments. I am extremely surprised. I remember the hon. Gentleman's Second Reading speech well, but, as he has consulted Ministers, it seems to me quite extraordinary that he should still table the amendments; they are quite unnecessary. It seems to me that he has tabled them simply to provide another opportunity to attack the local authority covering his constituency and the local authority workers.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for Colne Valley is aware of what he is saying when he suggests that Kirklees council is not entirely competent to do reinstatement work. When he spoke on Second Reading he called British Gas in support of his speech. He talked about the fact that British Gas had problems with Kirklees council. I have information to the effect that Kirklees council has recently agreed a trial with British Gas in which Kirklees council will do British Gas reinstatements. If that trial is successful, Kirk lees is likely to be asked to do that work on a permanent basis and that is in the light of this Bill's passage through the House.

Mr. Riddick: I am interested to hear what the hon. Lady has to say. All I know is that British Gas has a large sum of money held in an account waiting to be paid to Kirklees council, because the council has failed to carry out permanent reinstatement work, which it insists that it should do. We are not talking about a small amount of money—it is more than £1 million. I have talked to British Gas and I would be absolutely amazed if it puts its reinstatement work in the hands of Kirklees council. I am not suggesting that the DLO workers in Kirklees are not competent to do the work. If the hon. Lady had listened to my speech she would have heard me say that if they want to tender for the work that is fine, but they should do so from the private sector, and then there would be truly free and fair competition.

Mr. Ruddock: I fear that there is not an ounce of logic in what the hon. Gentleman has said. Clearly, British Gas—a private company—has experience of local government workers' reinstating holes, and it seems to have confidence in them. The hon. Gentleman should take the matter up with British Gas. Discussions appear to be in progress about using a local authority to do the work in the way envisaged in clause 90.

Mr. Riddick: When I tried to intervene on the hon. Lady on Second Reading she would not give way, although her speech ended two minutes before it need have done. Let me now ask the question that I wanted to ask then: will she urge the Kirklees councillors who oppose the Bill to accept its provisions?

Ms. Ruddock: The hon. Gentleman is straying very far from the point. The Bill is making progress; there is consensus between Opposition and Government. As I have said, we understand that Kirklees council is negotiating the possibility of carrying out such works as

are envisaged in clause 90. The hon. Gentleman seems to have some ideological problem with the concept of public sector workers tendering for work. If he wants more public sector workers in his constituency to be unemployed, he should address that problem; certainly his electors will do so in due course.
Clause 90 was introduced by the Government in another place. It was amended slightly on Report: its scope was extended to cover district councils as well as street authorities. We understand that the Government intended to clarify the position of local authorities in regard to the undertaking of work for utilities. As such, that was an extremely modest amendment whose aim was simply to make it clear that there was no legal impediment to a utility's inviting an authority to tender for a contract to carry out work on behalf of that utility. How could such moderation cause such offence?
Clause 90 does not give local authorities the right to demand the ability to carry out a utility's work; it does not give them the right to demand to be included on that utility's tender list. In fact, it gives local authorities no new powers at all. It simply makes it clear that, if a utility wishes to employ a local authority to undertake work for it, it may do so.
The Horne report, on which this part of the Bill is based, identified weaknesses and poor performance on the part of both highway authorities and utilities. There is no dispute about that. The Bill and the consensus surrounding it are directed towards a dramatic improvement in street works nationwide.
A utility that was dissatisfied with a local authority's past performance would surely be highly unlikely to invite that authority to tender for its necessary works. The standard to be met will be exactly the same whether the work force is that of the utility, the local authority or any other contractor, private or public. No privilege will accrue to local authorities as a consequence of clause 90.
The amendment would enable the Secretary of State to set a date, by order, after which clause 90 would not apply. It is difficult to see the reasoning behind it. The clause will be relevant only for such time as utilities consider it helpful to them to be able to arrange for work to be undertaken by a local authority. If no utility makes such an arrangement, the clause will be irrelevant.
Surely it is best left to individual utilities, rather than the Secretary of State, to determine whether arrangements should be made with local authorities. Why should the Secretary of State seek to block such arrangements if utilities find that they represent an efficient, economic and effective means of meeting their responsibilities under the Bill?
It is important to bear in mind the extent to which this part of the Bill represents a package, with pluses and minuses for both local authorities and the utilities. Both sides have accepted that package as a whole, and are obviously keen to see its early implementation. For the local authority associations, clause 90 represents an integral part of the package. Its amendment in the way proposed would seriously undermine highway authorities' confidence in the package, at a time when their commitment is essential. The legislation provides the bones of a new system, but the flesh will be provided by co-operation between the utilities, the highway authorities and the Department. The Minister for Public Transport has played a central role in holding those three groups


together during the passage of the Bill. Trust and confidence are vital ingredients, which I believe the amendment would wholly destroy.
We hope that the Minister will resist the amendment, which is opposed not only by us but by the local authority associations and the utilities. It is entirely unnecessary and its acceptance would send an unhelpful signal to highway authorities at a time when their commitment to the new street works regime is essential to the securing of its speedy and successful implementation. I hope that, at this late stage, the Minister will not accept such a destructive amendment.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I support the amendment, but not for the reasons advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick)—or, indeed, for the reasons attributed to him by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock).
If clause 90 is not amended, I believe that a problem may arise for local authorities—not, perhaps, a legal problem, but a practical one none the less. Let us suppose that an undertaking sub-contracted works of reinstatement or repair to a direct labour organisation within the local authority. If that authority were at the same time the street authority, it might find itself having to take action against the undertaking for non-performance of the contract that it had sub-contracted to its own direct labour organisation.
That strikes me as an extremely unfortunate position; indeed, an almost impossible position, notwithstanding the provision in clause 90(3) that
Nothing in this section shall be construed as derogating from any powers exercisable by the authority or council apart from this section.
The local authority would, of course, be expected to act properly in every respect, but it would be asking a great deal of any authority to expect it, when its own DLO had failed to deliver on a sub-contract, to embark on action that would inevitably involve the possibility of that DLO's being harshly punished.
Surely it would be better for all the parties concerned—especially, dare I say, the road user—for us to pass the amendments, and thereby avoid the risk that I have described. I hope that, if my hon. Friend the Minister shares my fear, he will accept them.

Mr. Chope: My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) referred to the clause on Second Reading, and I said then that I expected to be able to return to the subject in Committee. I recognised that clause 90 was effectively an exemption in regard to the principle contained in the local authority goods and services legislation, and emphasised that there was therefore a strong onus on its supporters to show that it was necessary.
Having considered clause 90 further, I think that it is necessary in order to facilitate an orderly transition from a regime in which local authority direct services organisations carry out almost all reinstatement work to a regime in which they will not do any. The power for local authorities to carry out private sector work should not be necessary beyond a point of transition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has cleverly drafted an amendment that will enable the Government, after necessary consultation with the utilities

and the local authorities, to say "We are now bringing this regime to an end and we shall carry on with the normal principles that apply", which, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) knows, are that local authorities do not tender or carry out work for the private sector.
8.30 pm
Things have moved on much since the Home report, because now all utilities are in the private sector. The principle is whether it is right that local authority DSOs should carry out work for private sector organisations, or whether it should more properly be done in the private sector.
I very much agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley about the principle that local authorities should be enablers rather than direct providers of service. That is even more important when local authorities are adopting a regulatory role—a point that was made cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs).
I hope that the House will accept the amendments, which will make the Bill more flexible. They will enable the Government to introduce regulations to end the right of local authority DSOs to carry out private sector work. For the reasons that I gave, it would not be right to exclude clause 90 from the Bill, which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley urged on Second Reading.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:  Ayes 130. Noes 38.

Division No. 152]
[8.31 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley 


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fox, Sir Marcus


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Freeman, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gorst, John


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gregory, Conal


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hague, William


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bowis, John
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hawkins, Christopher


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayward, Robert


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Butterfill, John
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Carrington, Matthew
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cash, William
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Chope, Christopher
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Irvine, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Jack, Michael


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cope, Rt Hon John
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fallon, Michael
Lord, Michael


Favell, Tony
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)






Maclean, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Madel, David
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Mans, Keith
Shelton, Sir William


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miscampbell, Norman
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Speed, Keith


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Summerson, Hugo


Page, Richard
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Paice, James
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Portillo, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Powell, William (Corby)
Trippier, David


Price, Sir David
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Widdecombe, Ann


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Winterton, Nicholas


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)



Roe, Mrs Marion
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Tim Boswell and Mr. Timothy Wood.


Sackville, Hon Tom





NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Meale, Alan


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Mullin, Chris


Carr, Michael
Nellist, Dave


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cox, Tom
Quin, Ms Joyce


Cryer, Bob
Ruddock, Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Sheerman, Barry


Dixon, Don
Skinner, Dennis


Duffy, A. E. P.
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Faulds, Andrew
Spearing, Nigel


Fearn, Ronald
Wallace, James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Walley, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wareing, Robert N.


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lewis, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)



McCartney, Ian
Tellers for the Noes:


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


McMaster, Gordon
Thomas McAvoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

New Clause 11

CHARGE FOR OCCUPATION OF THE ROAD WHERE WORKS UNREASONABLY PROLONGED

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring an undertaker executing road works in a public road to pay a charge to the roads authority where—
(a) the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and
(b) the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

(2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the undertaker to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable, for completion of the works in question.
In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbiter.

(3) The regulations may provide that if an undertaker has reason to believe that the duration of works will exceed the prescribed period he may submit to the authority an estimate of their likely duration—
(a) in the case of works in connection with the initial placing of apparatus in the road in pursuance of a

permission granted under section 105 (permission to execute road works), together with his application for permission,
(b) in the case of other works (not being emergency works), together with his notice under section 110 (notice of starting date), or
(c) in the case of emergency works, as soon as reasonably practicable after the works are begun, and that the period stated in an estimate so submitted shall he taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the undertaker that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—
(a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
(b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or
(c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the road is affected by the works.

Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time at which the works are executed and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(7) The regulations shall provide that a roads authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(8) The first regulations for the purposes of this section shall not be made unless a draft of them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament; subsequent regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 107

EMERGENCY WORKS

Amendment made: No. 81, in page 62, line 20 after 'imminent' insert
'(or which the person responsible for the works believes on reasonable grounds to be existing or imminent)'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 113

RESTRICTION ON WORKS FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIAL WORKS CARRIED OUT FOR ROAD PURPOSES.

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 65, line 17, leave out
'which consists of or includes a carriageway'.

No. 83, in page 65, leave out lines 20 to 28 and insert—
'For this purpose substantial works means works for road purposes, or such works together with other works, of such description as may be prescribed.'.

No. 84, in page 66, line 15, leave out


'(which shall not be unreasonably withheld)'.

No. 85, in page 66, line 22 at end insert—
'() The consent of the road works authority under subsection (5)(b) shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any question whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable shall be settled by arbitration.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 114

GENERAL DUTY OF ROAD WORKS AUTHORITY TO CO- ORDINATE WORKS.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 66, line 39, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'. [Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 115

GENERAL DUTY OF UNDERTAKERS TO CO-OPERATE

Amendment made: No 87, in page 67, line 23, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 116

PROTECTED ROADS

Amendments made: No. 88, in page 67, line 35, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
'() The consent of the road works authority is required for the placing of apparatus by an undertaker in a protected road, except as mentioned below.

The following are "protected roads" for this purpose—
(a) any road or proposed road which is a special road in accordance with section 7 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984, and
(b) any road designated by the road works authority as protected.
() Consent is not required for the placing of apparatus—
(a) by way of renewal of existing apparatus, or
(b) in pursuance of a permission granted under section 105 of this Act (permission to execute road works) or section 61 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (permission to place and maintain apparatus under a road), except where the permission was granted before the road became a protected road.'.

No. 89, in page 68, line 8, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Schedule 6

ROADS WITH SPECIAL ENGINEERING DIFFICULTIES

Amendment made: No. 90, in page 106, line 14, leave out 'or part of a road'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 124

WORKS LIKELY TO AFFECT OTHER APPARATUS IN THE ROAD

Amendment made: No. 91, in page 72, leave out lines 9 to 18 and insert
'take all reasonably practicable steps—
(a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 129

FEE FOR OCCUPATION OF A ROAD

Amendment made: No. 109, in page 75, line 20, leave out Clause 129.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 136

DUTY TO MAINTAIN APPARATUS

Amendments made: No. 92, in page 79, line 6, leave out 'safety, the' and insert 'the safety and'.

No. 93, in page 79, line 9, leave out 'in it' and insert 'of the authority in the road'.

No. 94, in page 79, line 18, leave out 'road, bridge or' and insert
'works for roads purposes, major bridge works or major'.

No. 95, in page 79, line 20, leave out subsections (3) aned (4) and insert—
'(3) If an undertaker fails to give a relevant authority the facilities required by this section—
(a) the road works authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and
(b) any other relevant authority may in any case,
execute such works as are needed to enable them to inspect the apparatus in question, including any necessary breaking up or opening of the road.

(4) If an undertaker fails to secure that apparatus is maintained to the reasonable satisfaction of a relevant authority in accordance with this section—
(a) the road works authority may in such cases as may be prescribed, and
(b) any other relevant authority may in any case,
execute any emergency works needed in consequence of the failure.'.

No. 96, in page 79, line 34, at end insert—
'() Nothing in subsection (3) or (4) shall be construed as excluding any other means of securing compliance with the duties imposed by subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 137

LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE OR LOSS CAUSED

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 79, line 37, leave out from 'any' to and' and insert
'damage or loss suffered by the authority in their capacity as such'.

No. 98, in page 79, leave out lines 39 and 40 and insert 'expense reasonably incurred in making good damage to that apparatus'.

No. 99, in page 80, line 11, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.

No. 100, in page 80, line 14, leave out 'authority' and insert 'person'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 138

WORKS FOR ROAD PURPOSES LIKELY TO AFFECT APPARATUS IN THE ROAD.

Amendment made: No. 101, in page 80, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert 'take all reasonably practicable steps—
(a) to give the person to whom the apparatus belongs reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by him which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the apparatus or for securing access to—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 140

SHARING OF COST OF NECESSARY MEASURES

Amendment made: No. 102, in page 81, line 31, leave out from 'undertaker' to 'make' in line 45 and insert 'in such manner as may be prescribed.

(2) The regulations may make provision as to the costs allowable for this purpose.

Provision may, in particular, be made for disallowing costs of the undertaker—
(a) where the apparatus in question was placed In the road after the authority had given the undertaker the prescribed notice of their intention to execute the works, or
(b) in respect of measures taken to remedy matters for which the authority were not to blame, and for allowing only such costs of either party as are not recoverable from a third party.

(3) Where the authority have a right to recover from a third party their costs in taking measures in relation to undertaker's apparatus but in accordance with section 139 it is determined that the measures should be taken by the undertaker, the right of the authority includes a right to recover the undertaker's costs in taking those measures and they shall account to the undertaker for any sum received.

(4) The regulations shall provide for the allowable costs to be borne by the authority and the undertaker in such proportions as may be prescribed.

Different proportions may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.

(5) The regulations may require the undertaker to give credit for any financial benefit to him from the betterment or deferment of renewal of the apparatus resulting from the measures taken.

(6) The regulations may'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 143

BRIDGES, BRIDGE AUTHORITIES AND RELATED MATTERS

Amendment made: No. 103, in page 83, leave out: lines 22 to 33 and insert
'take all reasonably practicable steps—
(a) to give the bridge authority reasonable facilities for monitoring the execution of the works, and
(b) to comply with any requirement made by them which is reasonably necessary for the protection of the bridge or for securing access to it.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 147

SPECIAL PRECAUTIONS AS TO DISPLAYING OF LIGHTS

Amendment made: No. 104, in page 85, line 30, at end insert—
'() In proceedings for such an offence it is a defence for the undertaker to show that all reasonable care was taken by him, and by his contractors and by persons in his employ or that of his contractors, to secure that no such failure occurred.'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Clause 149

POWER OF ROAD WORKS AUTHORITY OR DISTRICT COUNCIL TO UNDERTAKE ROAD WORKS

Amendment proposed: No. 117, in page 86, line 28, at end insert—
'() This section shall cease to have effect upon such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by

statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Riddick.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 25.

Division No. 153]
[8.43 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Jackson, Robert


Arbuthnot, James
Jessel, Toby


Ashby, David
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bellingham, Henry
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knapman, Roger


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Knox, David


Bottomley, Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Lord, Michael


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Bowis, John
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Maclean, David


Brazier, Julian
Madel, David


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Mans, Keith


Butterfill, John
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Carrington, Matthew
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Cash, William
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Chapman, Sydney
Miscampbell, Norman


Chope, Christopher
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Colvin, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Nicholls, Patrick


Cope, Rt Hon John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Cran, James
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Page, Richard


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Paice, James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Portillo, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Powell, William (Corby)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Price, Sir David


Dover, Den
Redwood, John


Dykes, Hugh
Riddick, Graham


Fallon, Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Favell, Tony
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Roe, Mrs Marion


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Rowe, Andrew


Forth, Eric
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Sackville, Hon Tom


Freeman, Roger
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gale, Roger
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shelton, Sir William


Goodlad, Alastair
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Gorst, John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Stern, Michael


Gregory, Conal
Stevens, Lewis


Hague, William
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hannam, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Haselhurst, Alan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hawkins, Christopher
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Trippier, David


Hayward, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Viggers, Peter


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Widdecombe, Ann


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)



Hunter, Andrew
Tellers for the Ayes:


Irvine, Michael
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Jack, Michael
 Mr. Timothy Wood.




NOES


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Haynes, Frank


Cox, Tom
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Lewis, Terry


Dixon, Don
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McAvoy, Thomas


Fearn, Ronald
McMaster, Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Meale, Alan






Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Nellist, Dave
Worthington, Tony


Ruddock, Joan



Sheerman, Barry
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Allen McKay and


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Robert Wareing.


Wallace, James

Question accordingly agreed to.

Schedule 8

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 111, leave out lines 18 to 47 and insert—

Builders' skips: charge for occupation of highway

140A.—(1) The Minister may make provision by regulations requiring the owner of a builder's skip deposited on a highway maintainable at the public expense o pay a charge to the highway authority where—
(a) the period for which the skip remains in the highway exceeds such period as may be prescribed, and
(b) the skip is not removed within a reasonable period.

(2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the owner of the skip to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.

(3) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the highway authority for permission under section 139 above submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the occupation of the highway, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the owner of the skip that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the occupation of the highway—
(a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
(b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or
(c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the period for which the highway is occupied by the skip and the extent of the occupation.

Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the place and time of the occupation and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.

(6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".'.

No. 67, in page 112, leave out lines 14 to 49 and insert—

' "Works under s. 169 or s. 171: charge for occupation of the highway.

171A.—(1) The Minister may make provision by regulations requiring a person carrying out any of the following works in a highway maintainable at the public
expense

(a) erecting or retaining a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or
(b) depositing building materials, rubbish or other things, or making a temporary excavation, as mentioned in section 171(1) above,
to pay a charge to the highway authority if the duration of the works exceeds such period as may be prescribed and the works are not completed within a reasonable period.

(2) For this purpose "a reasonable period" means such period as is agreed by the authority and the person executing the works to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.

In default of agreement, the authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbitrator.

(3) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the highway authority for a licence under section 169 or consent under section 171 submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the works, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(4) The regulations may also provide that if it appears to the person carrying out the works that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the works—
(a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
(b) is likely to exceed the period stated in his previous estimate, or
(c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the time taken to complete the works and the extent to which the surface of the highway is affected by the works.

Different rates of charge may be prescribed according to the description of works, the place and time at which they are executed and such other factors as appear to the Minister to be relevant.

(6) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(7) The regulations shall provide that a highway authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(8) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Minister by regulations.".'.

No. 68, in page 113, line 14, at end insert—
'; and in subsection (15) (supplementary provision as to costs recoverable by highway authority), for "the cost of any works which are required by the said Act of 1950 to be executed" substitute "the cost of any measures needing to be taken in relation to undertaker's apparatus, in accordance with section 80 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991,".'.

No. 69, in page 113, line 45, leave out from 'containing' to 'shall' in line 47 and insert—
(a) the first regulations for the purposes of section 140A,
(b) the first regulations for the purposes of section 171A as it applies in relation to erecting or retaining a relevant structure within the meaning of section 169(1) above, or
(c) the first regulations for the purposes of section 171 A as it applies in relation to depositing building


materials, rubbish or other things, or making a temporary excavation, as mentioned in section 171(1) above,'.

No. 15, in page 118, line 19, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 16, in page 123, line 46, leave out paragraph 61 and insert—
'61. In section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits on roads other than restricted roads), for subsection (2) (authority having power to make order) substitute—
(2) The power to make an order under subsection (1) is exercisable by the traffic authority, who shall before exercising it in any case give public notice of their intention to do so.".'.

No. 110, in page 128, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 18 on page 129 and insert—

'Charge for occupation of road

61A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by regulations requiring a person who occupies a public road by doing anything to which this section applies to pay a charge to the roads authority if the duration of the occupation exceeds the longer of the following periods—
(a) such period as may be prescribed; or
(b) such period as is agreed by the authority and the person to be reasonable or, in default of such agreement, is determined by arbitration to be reasonable in the circumstances.

(2) This section applies to the occupation of a public road by doing anything which would require the consent or permission of a roads authority under any of the following provisions of this Act—
section 56 (works executed in or excavations under a public road);
section 58 (occupation of road for deposit of building materials and erection of scaffolding);
section 59 (placing or depositing anything in a road);
section 61 (placing, leaving, retaining, maintaining, repairing and reinstating apparatus in or under a public road); or
section 85 (depositing a builders' skip).

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) above, in default of agreement, the roads authority's view as to what is a reasonable period shall be acted upon pending the decision of the arbiter.

(4) The regulations may provide that if a person applying to the roads authority for consent or permission under any of the provisions of this Act specified in subsection (2) above submits together with his application an estimate of the likely duration of the occupation, the period stated in the estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(5) The regulations may provide that if it appears to the person occupying the road that by reason of matters not previously foreseen or reasonably foreseeable the duration of the occupation—
(a) is likely to exceed the prescribed period,
(b) is likely to exceed the period stated in the previous estimate, or
(c) is likely to exceed the period previously agreed or determined to be a reasonable period,
he may submit an estimate or revised estimate accordingly, and that if he does so any previous estimate, agreement or determination shall cease to have effect and the period stated in the new estimate shall be taken to be agreed by the roads authority to be reasonable unless they give notice, in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed, objecting to the estimate.

(6) The amount of the charge shall be determined in such manner as may be prescribed by reference to the duration and extent of the occupation and different rates of charge may be

prescribed according to the purpose of the occupation and such other factors as appear to the Secretary of State to be relevant.

(7) The regulations may make provision as to the time and manner of making payment of any charge.

(8) The regulations shall provide that a roads authority may reduce the amount, or waive payment, of a charge in any particular case, in such classes of case as they may decide or as may be prescribed, or generally.

(9) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations.'.

No. 105, in page 130, line 30, at end insert—

'(3) Where it is intended that the proposed toll order shall authorise the special road authority to assign their rights to charge and collect tolls, the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the local roads authority shall make a statement containing such information as may be prescribed with respect to that assignation and the person to whom the rights are intended to be assigned and—
(a) the statement shall be made available for inspection with the copy of the order to which the notice under subparagraph (1) or (2) relates; and
(b) the notice shall state that such a statement will be so available.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3) "prescribed" means prescribed by the Secretary of State by regulations made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

No. 111, in page 130, line 43, at end insert—

'14D.—(1) A toll order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure where—
(a) the relevant special road scheme provides for the appropriation by or transfer to the special road authority of an existing public road comprised in the route prescribed by the scheme, and
(b) the toll order authorises the charging of tolls for the use of that existing road or any part of it,
unless the Secretary of State is satisfied as regards all classes of traffic entitled to use the existing road that another reasonably convenient route free of toll is available, or will be provided before the date on which the appropriation or transfer takes effect, and certifies accordingly.

(2) Where the Secretary of State proposes to give such a certificate, he shall—
(a) give public notice of his intention to do so,
(b) afford an opportunity to all persons interested to make representations and objections, and
(c) cause a public local inquiry to be held if it appears to him to be expedient to do so, having regard to representations or objections made,
and before deciding whether to give the certificate he shall consider any representations and objections made and, if an inquiry has been held, the report of the person who held the inquiry.

(3) As soon as may be after giving a certificate, the Secretary of State shall publish in the Edinburgh Gazette, and in such other manner as he thinks best for informing persons affected, a notice stating that the certificate has been given.'.

No. 112, in page 130, line 44, leave out '14D" and insert '14E'.

No. 113, in page 130, line 47, at end insert—

'(3) In paragraph 19 of that Schedule—
(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "1" insert "or 14A";
(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "above" there shall be inserted the words "or held under paragraph 14B above"; and
(c) in sub-paragraph (c), for the words "and 13" there shall be substituted the words ", 13 and 14C".'.

No. 114, in page 130, line 47, at end insert—

'. At the end of Schedule 2 to the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984 (validity and date of operation of certain orders and schemes), the following paragraph shall be inserted—

"6. The provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 above apply in relation to a certificate under paragraph 14D(I) of Schedule 1 to this Act as in relation to a scheme or order to which this Schedule applies, subject to the following modifications—
(a) the reference in paragraph 2 above to the notice required by paragraph 1 above shall be construed as a reference to the notice required by paragraph 14D(3) of that Schedule, and
(b) in paragraph 4 above for the words 'made or confirmed' there shall be substituted the word 'given' and the words from 'and shall become operative' to the end shall be omitted.".'.

No. 17, in page 131, line 2, at end insert—

'Roads Act 1920 (c.72)

. In section 10 of the Roads Act 1920 (powers of Secretary of State in relation to charges for use of vehicles on roads), at the end insert—
Nothing in this section applies to any sum payable by virtue of Part I or II of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991.".'.

No. 18, in page 131, line 3, leave out paragraph 97 and insert—

'Fire Services Act 1947 (c.41)

.—(1) The Fire Services Act 1947 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 3(2) (supplementary powers of fire authorities; provisions as to exercise of power to place fire alarms in public places), for the words from the beginning to "maintaining the road;" or, in Scotland, "of the roads authority;" substitute—

"(2) Before exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1)(c) above in relation to a highway for which they are not the highway authority or, in Scotland, a public road for which they are not the roads authority, a fire authority shall obtain the consent of the highway or roads authority;".

(3) In section 38(1) (interpretation)—
(a) at the appropriate place insert— "'highway authority' has the same meaning as in the Highways Act 1980;"; and
(b) in the definition of "road" for the words "Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950" substitute "Part IV of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991".'.

No. 106, in page 133, line 10, at end insert—

'New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (c.16)

. In section 8 of the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (acquisition of land for roads in connection with new towns), in subsection (2) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the roads authority".'.

No. 107, in page 133, line 21 after 'lines)' insert '—
(a) for the words "road, other than a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is not the roads authority"; and
(b)'

No. 19, in page 133, line 42, at end insert—

'Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (c.75)

. In Schedule 3 to the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976 (the new towns code)—
(a) in paragraph 1(4)(c) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority", and
(b) in paragraph 2(2) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the highway authority".'.

No. 20, in page 135, line 17, at end insert—

'New Towns Act 1981 (c.64)

. In section 11 of the New Towns Act 1981 (acquisition of land for highways), in subsection (2)(a) (powers of Secretary of State) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which he is the highway authority".'.

No. 70, in page 136, line 10, leave out '"upon,'" and insert "'in, on,".'.

No. 21, in page 136, line 29, at end insert—

'Transport Act 1985 (c.67)

.—(1) The Transport Act 1985 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 7(12) (application of traffic regulation conditions to local bus services; requirement of consent of Secretary of State) for "a trunk road" substitute "a road for which the Secretary of State is the highway or roads authority".

(3) In section 137(1) (interpretation), omit the definition of "trunk road".'.

No. 22, in page 136, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 32 and insert—

'112.—(1) Section 62 of the Airports Act 1986 (provisions as to telecommunications apparatus) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2) (cases in which highway authority or owner of subsoil may require alteration of apparatus), for paragraph (b) substitute—

(b) for the improvement of the highway where the Secretary of State is not the highway authority,".

(3) In subsection (4) (limit on effect of subsection (2)(b),'. No. 23, in page 137, line 22, at end insert—

'Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)

.—(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 22A(3)(c)(i), omit the words "section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950".

(3) In section 39 (provisions with respect to road safety)—
(a) in subsection (3)(a) (duty of local authority as to study of road accidents), for "trunk roads" substitute "roads for which the Secretary of State is the highway authority (in Scotland, roads authority)";
(b) in subsection (3)(b) (duties as to taking of measures in light of studies), for "roads for which they are the highway authority (in Scotland, local roads authority)" substitute "roads for the maintenance of which they are responsible".

(4) In section 192(1) (general interpretation), for the definition of "highway authority" substitute—

"'highway authority', in England and Wales, means—
(a) in relation to a road for which he is the highway authority within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to any other road, the council of the county, metropolitan district or London borough, or the Common Council of the City of London, as the case may be;".'.

No. 24, in page 138, line 31, leave out from beginning to 'for' in line 32 and insert—

'119.—(1) Section 256 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (provisions as to telecommunications apparatus) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3) (power of local highway authority to require alteration of apparatus) for "highway, other than a trunk road" substitute "highway for which the Secretary of State is not the highway authority".

(3) In subsection (4) (limitation of power under subsection (3))'.—[Mr. Freeman.]

Schedule 9

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 141, line 36, at end insert—


'1985 c. 67.
Transport Act 1985.
In section 137(1), the definition of "trunk road".

No. 26, in page 141, line 40, at end insert—

'1988 c. 52.
Road Traffic Act 1988.
In section 22A(3)(c)(i), the words "section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950".'.—Mr. Freeman.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified].

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Ms. Ruddoclk: I do not propose to detain the House for long. However, I want to place on the record the stage that we have reached in this Third Reading. We remain fundamentally and implacably opposed to the private toll road programme, and we do not intend to implement that programme when we are in government—something that we expect to happen soon.
However, we are grateful to the Minister for having taken account of the many amendments and new clauses that we and others tabled in Committee. They have brought the procedures for private toll roads—should they ever be used—into a better form. There will be more accountability and more reporting in the public arena. More justice and fairness will be brought to bear on that procedure should it ever be used.
I recall the comments made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson). Clearly it is to the detriment of the people of Skye that the only opportunity for their island to be joined to the mainland lies in the procedures in this legislation. It is our wish and it is undoubtedly theirs that they should have that modern infrastructure provided without recourse to a privately built and tolled road.
There was much greater harmony on the second half of the Bill. The consensus has been reached after many years of hard work by the civil servants in the Department of Transport in meeting constantly, listening to and taking advice from representatives of the local authority associations and the utilities who, in their turn, have provided Opposition Members with much important information and assistance in drafting amendments which at their behest we tried to use to improve the Bill.
I am glad to say that part II of the Bill has been substantially improved. We now know that we have perhaps the best possible regime in terms of improving the quality and speed with which street works are undertaken in this country. Poorly executed street works have been and are a major danger to pedestrians, cyclists and those who drive cars and public service vehicles. They are all inconvenienced, and there is often huge congestion and a variety of problems which the Bill seeks to end. We are glad about that, and we had hoped to conclude tonight's proceedings with real harmony.
Unhappily, that harmony was ended by Government support for a completely unnecessary amendment that has removed from local authorities the possibility of their undertaking street works on behalf of the utilities. That measure was not only completely unnecessary but unwarranted. It suggests that local authorities and their direct labour organisations are not worthy of holding contracts for that work. We cannot agree with that measure and, in government, will not implement it.
I thank the Ministers for the co-operation that has been afforded to us, for notes during our proceedings, and for the meetings that the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman) offered us, which we were glad to have.
The Bill will now provide for immense improvements for safety and convenience on our highways. For that we are most grateful. However, we remain opposed to private building and to toll roads funding, as mentioned in parts I and II, in any part of England and Wales and particularly in Scotland, with reference to the Skye road bridge. We expect to be in government before too long. We will not allow those private toll roads to be built.

Mr. Fearn: I also welcome the Bill. Unfortunately, in Committee and on Second Reading, the Minister did not accept that the skill of management of Government has been used to bring two parts of the Bill together—one popular and one unpopular. The unpopular part relates to toll roads, with which we agree in principle, but which has many environmental problems. The second part of the Bill, which relates to street works, was agreed by most hon. Members, and very little controversy arose. We certainly now have a Bill that considers most people, but perhaps it should consider motor cyclists and cyclists even more.
With those few words, I hope that the Bill has a speedy passage and is on the statute book before long.

9 pm

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I join in congratulating both sides of the House on getting at least the agreed parts of the Bill into good order. I also congratulate those who worked on the Horne committee and those who worked in the National Joint Utilities group for many years—rather more years than they would have wished. It is quite clear that this measure will lead to greater efficiency, effectiveness and economy. In time, many people should see the benefits of it.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock). The idea of direct labour organisations would be greeted with horror in the London borough of Greenwich, where my constituency is. On inspection, it turned out that the direct service organisation, the equivalent of what the hon. Lady was talking about, managed to make not a 5 per cent. return on capital, which is demanded of it, but a loss of 186 per cent. That £2 million loss a year would have been £3 million without drastic management action.
Such a loss cannot be afforded by the highway authorities which look after 96 per cent. of our roads. It is important that we try to achieve cost-effectiveness in carrying out work as well as a system that works.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not want to give way to the hon. Lady, as it may lead to a debate that perhaps should have taken place earlier.

Ms. Ruddock: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Bottomley: I shall give way if the hon. Lady insists.

Ms. Ruddock: I am sorry to insist, but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was here when we debated the clause to which I referred and in respect of which disharmony occurred. I said that the amendment was


unnecessary. The clause allows only the possibility of a local authority tendering for work. It did not in any way give any benefit to a local authority, other than saying that it was not prohibited from being involved. The hon. Gentleman's points bear no relevance to the debate on clause 90 and the amendment to it.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Lady does not understand how much I know about national and local arrangements. Greenwich has acted as agent for the Department. If Greenwich was able to act as an agent for utilities as well, and if it was able to conceal its losses so that nursery classes, pavements, libraries and swimming pools went, to take the £2 million out of the accounts because it lost on its road works and white line painting, I am fully justified in making my remarks. If the hon. Lady refers to my remarks when the Official Report is published, she might tell other Labour authorities that we cannot afford their inefficiencies.
The street works proposal is very important. I hope that we shall see vast improvements so that all those who use our roads, whether on foot or on wheels, benefit.

Mr. Haynes: It is a great pleasure to follow an ex-Transport Minister. He is talking differently from how he talked when he was at the Dispatch Box. He has changed his quarter or his corner, has the hon. Gentleman. I do not agree with him at all. I used to agree with him sometimes in the early hours of the morning. He used to bring orders in the early hours of the morning and keep us out of bed, but we were interested in transport, and road safety in particular.
Here we go again. The Government are at it again. They do not like the public sector but they love the private sector, because of the profit motive.
I believe that local authorities have done a marvellous job over the years, so why should they be criticised? The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) criticised his local authority a few moments ago—the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) was not even here.

Mr. Riddick: His council's incompetence is even greater than my council's incompetence.

Mr. Haynes: I have really done it now.

Mr. Riddick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Haynes: No. Sit down. I have not finished what I was saying. I may not be in the Chair, but I have the Floor. I did not realise that I would get the hon. Members for Eltham and for Colne Valley at each other's throats. The hon. Member for Colne Valley has the opportunity to make a speech, if he wants to criticise a former Transport Minister. The hon. Gentlemen are arguing between themselves when they have not even been called from the Chair.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: They are trying to wind you up.

Mr. Haynes: I do not want any sarcasm from Selly Oak, either. The hon. Gentleman will get awkward in a minute or two, and we will have to deal with him. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman may laugh, but he will be dealt with.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: I surrender.

Mr. Haynes: I think that the hon. Gentleman should surrender now, and go. We do not want any difficulty after the debate.
When the hon. Member for Colne Valley spoke to an earlier amendment, I could not help intervening. As I said then, I am a cyclist. I like cycling. We spend so much time in this place sitting down, and people need exercise. Many Members go to the gymnasium to exercise, but I exercise on my bike. Many a night when we have knocked off at the House late at night or in the early hours of the morning, I have passed you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, going to your London residence. I am on my bicycle trying to keep an eye on you, and on the road, and on the traffic. That is difficult in this area of Westminster.
I do not cycle very far: I am only 15 minutes away—15 wonderful minutes on my bicycle—but that is enough for me to know how appalling the road conditions are round here. Yet Ministers from the Prime Minister downwards stand at the Dispatch Box bragging about Wandsworth and Westminster and all the things they do so cheaply. I know that Westminster council does things cheaply, because I have to cycle along dodging potholes in the blinking road, with traffic all over the damn place, and I have to watch where I am going. It is very difficult.
Back home, we have a first-class local authority. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Transport is listening, so that I can tell him that my local county council does a first-class job looking after the roads. If it spends a little too much, it is criticised, but the money is spent in the interests of road safety, in consultation with many organisations, including the police. The hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Brandon-Bravo) knows about the consultation that takes place about roads.
A marvellous ring road was built in my constituency, with a cycle track. That is what the Government ought to encourage. Ministers often tell us that people should cycle more, and if they did so, more Raleigh cycles from Nottingham would be sold. That would be good for business and for the people who rode the cycles. But we need proper facilities to be able to cycle.
The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) mentioned motor cyclists. Motor cycling is another aspect of cycling. My county council puts a cycle track beside its new roads. I wish that Ministers would order all county councils to do the same; then we might get somewhere. There are far too many cars on the road.
Not all that long ago, I was lucky enough to be in China. I heard the arguments about the Hong Kong business, the airport and the roads to the new airport. I saw many people cycling. They were as fit as fiddles. They could work any number of hours because they were fit from cycling. We ought to encourage more and more people to cycle in Britain, because we need facilities for cyclists.
I should like to see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) on a bicycle. If he had been on a bicycle, that rottweiler probably would not have attacked him. I was sorry for the hon. Gentleman when it happened, but at the same time I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) when he wanted to know if the dog was all right.
I have said my piece. I hope that the Treasury Bench—[Interruption.] I do not know why the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh,


West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), is laughing. It is a serious matter. I hope that the Scottish Minister has taken what I have said on board, because they cycle up in Scotland. We should provide proper facilities. I beg the Treasury Bench to do something about the problem and to order local authorities, when they plan to extend major roads and ring roads, to include proper facilities for cyclists.
I plead on behalf of cyclists because there are a lot of us. Many organisations support cyclists. I hope that the Treasury Bench will do so. I do not need to say any more. I have made my appeal in the hope that at least the Government have listened.

Mr. Bowis: Before I ask the hon. Member for Ashheld (Mr. Haynes) for a lift home on the back of his bike, I wish the Bill well, with two brief comments. The first is on part I. In Committee, we spent a great deal of time talking about the environment. I wish the Bill well in the hope that it will provide an opportunity for the environment. Environmental groups may in future be able to advance their own ideas for a private road into which they put their own resources to avoid some of the problems that they have come across. I am thinking of Twyford Down and other places where there could be a real opportunity for the future.
My second comment is on part II. I welcome the opportunity that it will give to my constituents and other people in the inner cities who have sat in traffic jams behind road works or had problems in walking along the pavements, or whose cycle has become stuck in a rut caused by road works. Those problems will be put right. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). He has steered the Bill through often by coming to see a problem. Having seen it, he has often come back with a solution.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) by congratulating and thanking my hon. Friend the Minister, who has steered the Bill through with understanding and concern. We had some excellent debates on road safety in Committee. I hope that all those involved will accept the importance attached by all those who served on the Committee and by other hon. Members to enhancing road safety through some of the measures in the Bill.
The Bill should be good for road users. For those who drive motor cars, there should be fewer humps and hollows to impede their progress and destroy their cars. For cyclists, there should be greater safety, not just because the surface of the roads will be improved. Some of the changes made in Committee will improve the chances that cyclists will find their way unimpeded. There are also benefits for pedestrians. Which of us has not had letters

from pedestrians in our constituencies who have fallen down holes in the road or tripped over uneven pavements created by the poor quality of reinstatement of street works in the past?
All the people whom I have mentioned should benefit from the Bill, and I hope that they will do so. I also welcome parts I and II of the Bill. They provide an opportunity for a new capital input into road building in Britain. That should generate better traffic flow in parts of the country where it is badly needed and therefore help to generate greater prosperity and assist industries which depend on the movement of goods by road for their well-being.
I agree also with what has been said in this short Third Reading debate about the importance of ensuring that those responsible for new roads—indeed, all roads—take properly into account the need to preserve the environment, whenever and wherever that is possible.
Before my hon. Friend concludes this brief debate, may I ask him to tell the House when he expects the new regime introduced by the Bill to come into force. Many people will want to know the answer to that question. They are looking forward to the day when our labours on the Bill are brought to fruition. I have no doubt that it will greatly benefit all the people of this country.

Mr. Freeman: I thank the members of the Committee for their very hard work in Committee This is a workmanlike Bill. I also thank the officials and those outside Parliament who—rightly, constitutionally and perfectly properly—lobbied for and against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) played a leading role, in terms of the second part of the Bill, in accepting on behalf of the Government the Horne committee's recommendations. Both he and the whole House will now see those provisions on the statute book—I hope very shortly. For those who use our roads and highways, it will mean both safer and more expeditious use of carriageways and footways.
There is a sharp difference of opinion between the Opposition Front Bench and the Government on toll roads. We shall bring into force the toll road provisions as quickly as possible, as well as the other provisions dealing with street works. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) gave notice that the Opposition would not bring into effect parts I and II by cancelling projects such as the Skye bridge, the Birmingham northern relief road and the western orbital road. That is the implication of what the Opposition propose to do. Either they will have to increase taxation to pay for those projects or they will have to cancel other parts of the road programme.
I commend the Bill to the House. I know that, apart from those legitimate areas of political discord, it does a service to the people of this country. Parliament has done its work well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

SEAT BELTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts in Rear Seats by Adults) Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 2nd May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

COUNTY COURTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft County Court Remedies Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 3rd May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

VETERINARY SURGEONS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.),
That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 7th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Table


Percentages of Yearly Salary



Number of years of service


Age
Under 10
10
11
12
13
14
15 or over


Under 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50


50
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


51
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


52
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


53
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


54
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


55 to 64
50
60
68
76
84
92
100


65
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


66
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


67
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


68
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


69
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


70 or over
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

(3) In calculating for the purposes of paragraph (2) the number of years for which a person has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution, there should be disregarded—
(a) any fraction of a year for which he has so served; and
(b) if a grant was payable to him under this Resolution or any of the former resettlement grant Resolutions on any previous occasion, any period of service which was taken into account or disregarded on that occasion;
and in this paragraph 'the former resettlement grant Resolutions' means the second Resolution of 20th December 1971, the fourth Resolution of 4th March 1980 and the third Resolution of 19th July 1983.

We had a full debate on resettlement grants for older Members of Parliament on 31 January. I agreed then to put the issue to the Top Salaries Review Body. The motion before the House implements in full the proposals contained in the TSRB report that was made available to the House on 29 April. Since then I have found widespread acceptance of the TSRB's recommendations. I am sure that the whole House will wish me to place on record our

BROADCASTING

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)
That the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Question agreed to.

Members (Resettlement Grant)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor): I beg to move,
That in the opinion of this House, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament—
(1) A grant should be payable to any person who is a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution and at the general election consequent upon the dissolution either does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected.
(2) The amount of the grant in the case of any such person should be equal to the relevant percentage of a year's salary at the highest rate payable to Members of this House immediately before the dissolution, the relevant percentage for this purpose being that shown in the following Table in relation to—
(a) his age at the dissolution; and
(b) the number of years for which he has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution.
gratitude to the chairman and members of the TSRB, both for the speed with which they responded and for the skill with which they have addressed the issue. I believe, therefore, that we have been able to meet very speedily the clear wishes of the House, as expressed both in an early-day motion and in the debate on 31 January. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. Stanley Orme: May I, on behalf of the Opposition, say that we support the motion and the decision of the Top Salaries Review Body. After extensive consultation, we believe that it has made a positive and reasonable proposal that will be in the interests of many Members of Parliament. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members that previous proposals covered deceased Members of Parliament and their families—younger Members of Parliament benefited from the


changes that the Government introduced, with our support. This is a limited but positive step forward. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the proposals.

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: The Top Salaries Review Body arrives at some incredible proposals for hon. Members and I do not welcome the proposal for a grant in the same way as some people. I have managed to scratch a few bob together and at this stage I am not concerned about my interest in the matter.
A Member of Parliament who loses his seat, especially in his earlier years, faces real problems. Judges can retire on a full pension after 15 years because people think that they come to that job late in life. For the sake of the country, God forbid that we should get many 25-year-old hon. Members, who have done nothing before coming to this talking shop. Such people would have to be in the House for 33 years before qualifying for a full pension., and that is entirely wrong.
My argument follows the line of what an MP should do. The most unemployable person in the world is an ex-MP who entered the House at the age of 25 or 30 and lost his seat after 15 years. Give or take a few bob, he will receive £15,000 under the current resettlement process. I do not object to changing the system for the golden oldies. Someone of 70 who leaves this place full of years and honour and, I hope, full of pension will get exactly the same, £15,000, as someone under the age of 50.
A miner, an office worker or a worker in heavy steel can leave his job at 30 and become an MP. If he loses his seat he can go back to his former job and start again. When I was senior partner in my business 12 years ago I prided myself on the fact that I could do every job in my office. Now I am a consultant in that business and, because of mechanisation in the office, there is no way that I could run that business in the way that I did 12 years ago. Things move on and that applies to office and manual jobs.
An ex-Chancellor, an ex-Prime Minister or an ex-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry can sell our secrets and themselves for huge sums or they can sell their memoirs or get jobs in banks. They are all right, but the ordinary infantry, the Back Bencher, is what Parliament is all about. It is not about those who hold great office. They are part of the system, but the Back Bencher is part of the freedom of Parliament. If he has a family, a person of 50 is at the most expensive time of his life. He may still be paying off a mortgage or have kids at school and, even if they are not at fee-paying schools, we all know what children cost. He does not pay for a holiday just for Mutt and Jeff; he has to pay for four or five people. To lose one's seat at a time of such expenses is no laughing matter. [Interruption.] I welcome some of the proposed money going to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes). I know that hon. Members are keen to get away, but this is a serious issue. I have no genuine interest to declare except that I want to encourage people to come to this place, not just to seek high office but to play the insecure role of Back Benchers. This is an insecure job and if anyone thinks that those who leave here are highly desirable, he does not know some hon. Members as I know them. Some have fallen on very difficult times and the idea that they must go to a charity commission, which, I have no doubt, looks upon them kindly, is wrong.
I am not saying that hon. Members should be paid much more per se, but if they stick to their guns and stick by an honourable attitude to the job of a Back-Bench Member of Parliament or if they lose their seat or feel honour-bound to leave the House, they should not find themselves in such a ghastly disadvantaged position.
I do not think that people would begrudge the idea that the younger Members of Parliament—those under 55—should be dealt with more fairly. I know that some people have done their best with this resolution, but what they have done is typical of the civil servant top salary review cosy position. They have considered what they thought right, but they should consider what a Member of Parliament's job is. Members of Parliament should possibly be honoured more in the leaving than when they are here.
Hon. Members are not always equal—some have safe seats where the votes are weighed, not counted, and some have seats with small majorities, so it is a roulette wheel. I urge the House to consider the type of people that we need. We need those who are willing to stand up for principles and to take enough risks to come here in the first place. The resolution does nothing towards that. It helps those who are older, which is a good thing, but it does damn all for the younger hon. Member. Although we honour those going into the sunset, the sunrise of Parliament lies with the young, not with the retiring.

Mr. MacGregor: The short answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) is that we are not making changes to the existing system of resettlement grants for those leaving at a general election and who are under 65 because no one suggested that in the debate on 31 January. There were no complaints at that time, but general approval of the system.
The early-day motion showed that the concern arose for those over 65 and for the anomalies. That is why that issue was put to the Top Salaries Review Body. In paragraphs 6 and 9 of its report it makes clear the reasons why it believes that a change should be made in the form of the resolution. As the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) said, it is a comparatively narrow point but one about which many hon. Members felt strongly. It is dealt with very well by the TSRB, and I commend the resolution to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That in the opinion of this House, on the dissolution of the present or any future Parliament—
(1) A grant should be payable to any person who is a Member of this House immediately before the dissolution and at the general election consequent upon the dissolution either does not stand for election to this House or, if he does, is not elected.
(2) The amount of the grant in the case of any such person should be equal to the relevant percentage of a year's salary at the highest rate payable to Members of this House immediately before the dissolution, the relevant percentage for this purpose being that shown in the following Table in relation to—
(a) his age at the dissolution; and
(b) the number of years for which he has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution.

Table


Percentages of Yearly Salary



Number of years of service


Age
Under 10
10
11
12
13
14
15 or over


Under 50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50


50
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


51
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


52
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


53
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


54
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


55 to 64
50
60
68
76
84
92
100


65
50
58
65
72
78
85
92


66
50
56
62
67
73
78
84


67
50
54
58
63
67
72
76


68
50
52
55
58
62
65
68


69
50
50
52
54
56
58
60


70 or over
50
50
50
50
50
50
50

(3) In calculating for the purposes of paragraph (2) the number of years for which a person has served as a Member of this House before the dissolution, there should be disregarded—
(a) any fraction of a year for which he has so served; and
(b) if a grant was payable to him under this Resolution or any of the former resettlement grant Resolutions on any previous occasion, any period of service which was taken into account or disregarded on that occasion;
and in this paragraph 'the former resettlement grant Resolutions' means the second Resolution of 20th December 1971, the fourth Resolution of 4th March 1980 and the third Resolution of 19th July 1983.

Johnson Freight Services Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful for the opportunity to draw the attention of such an attentive House to the self-evident injustice which has happened to a company in my constituency, and we have it on the authority of Customs and Excise that it has happened to others.
Usually, when something of this kind occurs—no doubt through a mechanical and unintelligent application of the rules—it is rectified when drawn to the attention of a more senior official. If even that fails, a Minister considers the issue with the eyes of someone outside the bureaucracy. If necessary, the rule book itself is amended.
In my experience, virtually the only Government service where a manifest distortion of fairness and common sense is not rectified is in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which exercises its breathtakingly draconian powers as though it had never heard the word "accountable". I must say at once that I am not making a judgment about every official in the service. Some officials in Customs and Excise are manifestly fair and reasonable, but if one meets an official who is not, the officials will never admit that a fellow official may have been wrong. They even treat their Ministers, if I may say so, as word processors for those who wrote the departmental letters. I do not pretend that on this occasion anyone was crushed, just that people were treated with gross unfairness and insensitivity.
Let me recount the facts so that the House may judge for itself. Johnson Freight Services Ltd. is a company of freight agents in my constituency. In April 1987, it acted as freight forwarders for a cargo of fabrics consigned by a company in Germany to a company in London known as Fashion First Ltd. In order that the goods could be cleared by customs, Johnson Freight Services paid the value added tax of £3,167 19. Before the goods were delivered, it transpired that Fashion First could not pay for them and shortly afterwards it went into liquidation. In order to avoid having to carry the goods back to Germany, the German company sold the goods to a company in Leicester—J and S Garments Ltd.
In the normal course of events, when goods are imported VAT is paid on their value when they are purchased by the importer, who then marks them up and sells them at a profit. VAT is then paid on the retail value and the importer deducts as input the sum that was paid when they were imported. If J and S Garments had been the importer, it would have reimbursed Johnson Freight Services for the VAT paid on importation and it would have deducted that sum as inputs from the VAT which it paid on the sale. So Customs and Excise would have received from Johnson's the VAT due on the import price and would subsequently receive from J and S Garments the VAT due on the retail mark-up. J and S Garments would have paid the precise amount of VAT due and Johnson's would have received the money which it had advanced. That is exactly how the VAT system was always intended to work.
All that was required was that Customs and Excise should have agreed to treat J and S Garments as the importer instead of Fashion First, but that was too simple for the bureaucratic mind. No, it said that J and S Garments was not the importer; the goods had already been imported when it received them. In effect, Customs and Excise was saying that if J and S Garments reimbursed Johnson's it would not allow that company to deduct the sum as input from the money that it sent to Customs and Excise. So Customs and Excise has twice received the money and Johnson's is out of pocket for that amount. Customs and Excise is untroubled by that and, in short, its attitude to Johnson's is "Hard luck, mate. We have your money and we are keeping it."
The first argument of customs was that if agents pay money on behalf of importers it is a matter for Customs and Excise and the importers. That would be an understandable argument if the money had not been paid twice. If there is to be a loss. it should not fall on Customs and Excise—I accept that. The other parties should be left to sort out between themselves who is to bear the loss. However, in this case, there has been no loss—Customs and Excise has received its money. There has been a loss only because Customs and Excise received the money twice and it wants to keep both sums.
Customs and Excise then said that the money would have been returnable if, instead of the goods being sold to J and S Garments, they had been re-exported. They could have been returned to Germany and, presumably, sent back to this country as a fresh importation. Johnson's might then have reclaimed the money, but someone would have had to pay the freight charges both ways.
You and I, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are perhaps simple about these matters, but would we not have thought it more sensible to sell the goods in this country rather than re-exporting them? In any event, even if Johnson's had known about that provision and re-exported the goods, it would not have availed the company because it would apply only if the transaction took place after 31 June 1988. Do not ask me why. Even if the provision had been introduced in 1988, there could have been no conceivable objection to a retrospective provision if it recognised rather than took away someone's right.
Finally, when the only alternative would have been to change the mind of Customs and Excise, which clearly it was not possible to contemplate, Customs and Excise said that Fashion First Ltd.—the original importer—might reclaim the money which it had never layed out. As that potential liability existed, Customs and Excise could not

repay it to anyone else. Johnson's solved that problem by procuring a letter from Fashion First, undertaking that it would not ask for the money. It was all to no avail—Customs and Excise was, and remains, immovable.
It might be said that Customs and Excise was bound by the regulations. Perhaps beneath that bureaucratic jargon there beats something approximating to human hearts, but however unhappy Customs and Excise was at being unable to help, it was ruled by the statute. Alas, that is not the explanation. Customs and Excise has the power to make extra-statutory concessions where fairness requires them. Indeed, the possibility of reclaiming VAT paid on importations after June 1988, if the goods were re-exported, is itself an extra-statutory concession. But Customs and Excise is not prepared to change the wording of its own extra-statutory concessions. It says, "What we have written, we have written."
The problem may be that such a situation has never arisen before, so there has been no time properly to consider it—except since 1987. But that was not the case. On 5 September 1988, a surveyor in customs at Dover wrote to Johnson:
Cases identical to this one where goods have been rejected by the importer and re-sold to another trader have been submitted to Headquarters in the past but no amendments have been allowed".
That, it seems, concludes the argument. The Court of Appeal and even the other place in its judicial capacity may reconsider their former decisions, but not headquarters. We wither and perish, but naught changeth headquarters—it has spoken. The Minister will forgive me for saying that, when I wrote to her, she simply repeated the language of the oracle.
Some hon. Members may wonder why this case has taken so long to reach the stage of an Adjournment debate. Johnson's has been trying since 1987 to get someone in Customs and Excise to listen. It wrote to Customs and Excise at Dover on 11 January 1988 enclosing all the required documents. On 27 January, Customs and Excise replied, "Your request is refused". The reasons given were, first, that the entry could not be changed to show a new importer after the goods had been cleared by customs—I follow the logic but not the common sense—and, secondly, that the original importer still retains the right to reclaim the VAT.
After some oral consultations, Johnson's wrote again, saying that the matters were dealt with in the original documents. A letter came back asking Johnson's to resubmit the original documents, together with the letter of refusal from Customs and Excise. I can only assume that Customs and Excise failed to keep copies. Johnson's did that and then received the letter, dated 5 September 1988, to which I referred. It pointed out that, if the agency pays the VAT on behalf of the importer, that is a matter to be resolved between them. It said that headquarters had rejected similar applications in the past. I have already dealt with those two arguments.
Johnson's then tried writing to headquarters—why should the company not go to the authority that had been cited against it? Headquarters answered that the original importer had the right to reclaim the money. So Johnson's obtained from Fashion First the letter renouncing its claim to the money. The reply was that no new information had been provided which altered the decision.
Johnson's then approached me and I wrote to the Minister, who replied that the claim did not meet the


current criteria, as though Customs and Excise did not have the power to change the current criteria. I knew that, and I am asking that the current criteria should be amended if they give rise to such manifest injustice. I have been given no reason why that cannot be done. This is the kind of crass, uncomprehending bureaucracy that gives, crass uncomprehending bureaucracy a bad name.
I hope that it is still not too late for the Minister to stand back and consider what she is being asked to endorse. If such an incident can occur in respect of a modest sum, and the Department and the Minister cannot see what is unfair about it, perhaps it is time to circumscribe the powers of Customs and Excise before it does something much worse.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mrs. Gillian Shephard): I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) on the lucid and eloquent way in which he presented the Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to explain the Government's position on this matter, despite the fact that I am not only a word processor, but an oracle.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has set out the chronological facts of this case, on those there is no dispute. As he said, in April 1987, Johnson Freight Services acted as forwarding agents for a consignment of fabric from Germany being imported by Fashion First Ltd. Johnson's completed the customs entry documents in the name of Fashion First Ltd. and paid to customs £3,167 VAT on its principal's behalf. It is common commercial practice for importers to appoint agents to deal with customs formalities and pay import charges in that way. In this case, however, the importer refused the goods and is believed to have gone into liquidation. The goods were not re-exported because the German suppliers resold the goods to another United Kingdom trader, J and S Garments Ltd.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, Johnson's applied to customs first to change the importer's name on the import documentation, but that was refused because such changes cannot be made after goods have been cleared by customs and released. The reason for that is to avoid, as far as possible, the obvious possibilities that there might be for fraud.
Johnson's subsequently applied to customs for reimbursement of the money which the company had paid on behalf of the original importer, but which it had apparently been unable to obtain from that importer. Customs refused that application, too, because the law did not provide for such repayment. The law is clear and tightly drawn, and only the importer can reclaim VAT as input tax. It is the legal responsibility of customs to collect all charges due—duty and import VAT—on importation. That is achieved by means of an import entry submitted to customs at the time of importation declaring details of the goods being imported.
It is the importer's responsibility to have his goods entered to customs and pay any VAT or other import charges due. Only the importer can reclaim the VAT as input tax, subject to the normal VAT laws. The law on that is tightly drawn to ensure that two or more different

entities should not be able to deduct, as input tax, VAT on the same transaction. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will understand that.
For most importations, import agents or freight forwarders are used. They will submit an entry for goods at the place of importation on behalf of the importer, but importers can submit an entry and pay the VAT if they wish. If an agent or freight forwarder takes it on himself to pay the VAT due on behalf of the importer, that is a commercial arrangement between him and his principal—the importer. Customs regard the payment as having been made by the importer, and have made that clear in its publication, "Notice 702: VAT—imports and warehoused goods".

Mr. Archer: Before the Minister passes on to the next stage in her argument, will she take account of the fact that Fashion First has renounced any right to claim, so there will be no question of two people claiming the same amount of money. The company has said, "We are perfectly happy that you should pay the money to the people who originally paid it to you."

Mrs. Shephard: I have taken account of that matter, but the point is that the contract was between Johnson's and Fashion First and that is where the complaint and the problem for Johnson's lies.
What should have happened? Fashion First should have reimbursed Johnson's for the import VAT that the agent had paid to customs. There is no dispute about that.
Fashion First should then have deducted as input tax on its next VAT return the import VAT paid but obviously it went into liquidation.
Fashion First would properly have obtained the imported goods effectively tax free and would have accounted to customs for VAT on any onward supplies that it made. In respect of those goods, Johnson's could not have been entitled to deduct as input tax on its VAT return the import VAT paid on behalf of Fashion First, because Fashion First was the importer.
As regards deduction of input tax, VAT registered traders can, subject to the normal VAT rules, treat as input tax the VAT that they have paid on goods supplied to them, or imported by them, where the goods are used or to be used for the purpose of their business. In the case of imported goods only, the trader who imports the goods for the purpose of his business has the right to treat the import VAT as his input tax. A freight agent who pays import charges on behalf of an importer cannot acquire the importer's right.
What seems to have happened is this. Fashion First went into liquidation and failed to reimburse Johnson's for the import VAT that the agent had paid to customs. That is where the dispute lies—the failure of the contract between Johnson's and Fashion First.
Fashion First may or may not have deducted as input tax on its next VAT return the import VAT paid, although, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, a copy letter dated 28 September 1989 from Fashion First to Johnson's states that such a deduction had not and would not be made.

Mr. Archer: At the risk of being tiresome, I understand that in the first instance one would have expected Fashion First to reimburse Johnson's and then to deduct it from its VAT on onward sale. However, in this case that did not happen. J and S Garments simply stands in the same


position as Fashion First for that purpose. Fashion First has renounced any interest in the matter. Customs have had the amount twice. Apart from a rather curious logic, why should one not treat J and S Garments as if it was in the shoes of Fashion First?

Mrs. Shephard: If the right hon. and learned Gentleman could allow me pursue my argument, I shall come to a clear exposition of the commercial arrangements that shippers and forwarders need to take into account when they enter into such contracts with importers. That is set out in VAT public notice 702.
Fashion First refused the goods and the German supplier resold them to another United Kingdom trader, J and S Garments, so they kept on circulating within the United Kingdom and they were not re-exported.
No VAT was charged on that transaction. J and S Garments neither paid import VAT on the goods, nor made a corresponding deduction of that VAT in input tax on its next VAT return. J and S obtained the imported goods as if it had both paid the import VAT and subsequently deducted it. In no circumstances would either Johnson's or J and S have been entitled to deduct as input tax on their respective VAT returns the import VAT paid on behalf of Fashion First.
In law, only the importer who has imported the goods for the purpose of his business can reclaim the import VAT and he does so by means of normal VAT returns. An agent who enters into a commercial arrangement to pay import charges on behalf of an importer does not acquire his principal's right to reclaim the import VAT as input tax. That is stated unequivocally in the June 1986 edition of public notice 702. I shall read that in full, because it will help clarify the argument. The leaflet says:
If you act as a shipping or forwarding agent for importers and pay or defer VAT on their behalf, you cannot reclaim the VAT as input tax because the goods are not imported for the purpose of your business. Although Customs usually deal with agents in relation to the importation and clearance of goods, it is the importer's responsibility to ensure that the goods are properly entered and to pay VAT and other charges due. Only the importer can, subject to the normal 'rules, reclaim any VAT paid as input tax.
If for any reason you decide to pay the VAT or defer it to your own account on behalf of the importer, you should remember that this is a commercial arrangement between you and your principal. Payment of VAT in these circumstances does not entitle you to make any reclaim to Customs in the event of difficulty. Customs regard the payment as having been made by the importer. Whether or not the importer has received the goods the importer has a legal right to reclaim the tax subject to normal roles.
If the importer fails to pay you the VAT or goes into liquidation without reimbursing you, you cannot recover the money from Customs and Excise. Your only recourse is to the importer".
I know that that is not the burden of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. He is saying that that is the law, but we should see common sense and try to change it. My point is that nothing could possibly be clearer than the position laid out in those paragraphs. It is absolutely clear that if a shipper is not paid by an importer with whom he has entered into a contract, he cannot recover the money from Customs and Excise; his only recourse is to the importer. Johnson Freight Services, as an experienced forwarding agent, which undoubtedly provides services for merchants in the import-export business, would be aware of that.

Mr. Archer: The hon. Lady has been extremely courteous and helpful in giving way. Does she accept that that provision is to protect customs against a loss? I accept that if there is a loss, it should not fall on customs. However, in this case there has been no loss; customs has received the money twice.

Mrs. Shephard: I do not accept that. If two parties enter into a commercial arrangement, it is no part of customs to bail out either party in the event of the arrangement's failing. That is the point.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned extra-statutory concessions. Customs staff are not quite the hard-hearted and faceless persons whom he is trying to depict. I feel it incumbent upon me to defend them in their absence. An extra-statutory concession was introduced in 1988.
VAT is a tax on the consumption of goods and services in the United Kingdom. If goods on which tax has been paid to customs at import are re-exported and have not entered the UK economy, it is clearly unfair to the agent who paid the tax on behalf of an importer that he should have to bear the cost should the importer not reimburse him. During 1988, agents and freight forwarders made representations to customs about that problem. In July 1988 the Minister then responsible for customs—my right hon. Friend the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Lilley), now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—announced in the House an extra-statutory trial scheme for repayment to agents where certain conditions were met, and 30 June 1988 was adopted as the start time.
It is deeply irritating to be caught on the wrong side of such a line. However, in this case, because one of the criteria is that the goods should have been re-exported in the same state, the extra-statutory concession would not have helped Johnson. It is specifically to deal with the case where goods have not entered into and are not being circulated in the United Kingdom economy. That is why that concession cannot apply to Johnson Freight Services. Sadly, it entered into a commercial arrangement with Fashion First that went wrong. If Fashion First has gone into liquidation, perhaps Johnson's first recourse should be to the liquidators.
Normally, Adjournment debates offer a window of opportunity, but I have been limited to giving the clearest possible explanation of the Government's policy. VAT public notice 702 is clear. The fact that there might be a commercial risk involving VAT and customs is laid out clearly in the leaflet. It is clear that only importers can reclaim VAT on goods that are imported for the purpose of business and, if a problem occurs, the shipping agent, the freight forwarder, cannot have recourse to customs.

Mr. Archer: I am criticising not the clarity of the notice but the injustice of it. Is the Minister saying that, under no circumstances, would customs or the Treasury consider amending the notice to take account of circumstances where customs has had the money twice?

Mrs. Shephard: One can never say never. In the past, Treasury Ministers have considered aspects of VAT schemes and the way in which VAT works to see what injustices might be righted.
The commercial position of freight forwarders is so clearly laid out in VAT public notice 702 that they are


aware of the risk. Should a company with which they have a contract go into liquidation, they cannot have recourse to customs.
I sympathise with the predicament of Johnson Freight Services and with the arguments that were advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with all the skill for which he is well known. In drawing up rules and legal arrangements for contingencies, it is important to ensure that the rules and regulations and risks are laid out clearly so that those who are entering into arrangements are aware of the risks that they may be running.
It is important to protect the revenue. We are all rather grateful for the proceeds of VAT as national revenue. A tax-collecting system must be so arranged that the possibilities of fraud and mistake are minimised. I have much sympathy for the right hon. and learned Gentleman and much admiration for the way in which he presented his case. I said that one never says never, but, as things stand, we must stick to the position laid out in VAT public notice 702.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Ten o'clock.